I move—

I second.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—76.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen,’ H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—34.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. j.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

Since I am now introducing the sixth, and I hope the last, War Budget, it is fitting to begin with a word of thanks. This war period is certainly the most difficult period that humanity has ever experienced. One nation after another has been hit by destructive blows; human suffering, material damage reached an unprecedented level; never has the general economic dislocation been of such a far-reaching nature. But South Africa has come out of this war much better than anyone could have imagined, having regard to its nature, having regard to the trend of military operations in the first difficult years. The sufferings and trials of other countries have not fallen to our lot. It has also been our privilege to make a contribution to the success of the common war effort, a contribution which far exceeded our highest expectations at the beginning of the war, and which considerably enhanced the prestige, the good name of South Africa in the world overseas—and with all this our financial system has withstood the storm and pressure of war circumstances and demands with a high degree of resilience. Verily, we have ample ground for gratitude.

I second.

On the motion of the Minister of Transport the debate was adjourned; to be resumed on 1st March.

I lay upon the Table:

I also lay upon the Table a summary of facts and figures in connection with the Budget statement for inclusion in Hansard, as follows—

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening, I was busy discussing the necessity of a railway connection between Bitterfontein and Karasburg, a distance of less than 300 miles. It will link up the Cape Town market and South-West Africa. I cannot stress sufficiently the necessity for this junction. There is a tremendous amount of traffic between the northern provinces and Cape Town, and traffic is very heavy especially in view of the bottleneck at Hex River, so that the Government is aware of the fact that representations have already been made in connection with the doubling of the railway line through the Hex River. It will cost a great deal to put down a double line there, and if we were to have this connection between Cape Town and South-West Africa, it would at the same time relieve the heavy traffic through the Hex River. It is a small detour, but the northern provinces would then have the benefit of a big portion of the transport using the detour through Namaqualand. Apart from that no railway would yield better returns than this one from Cape Town through Namaqualand and on to South-West. We now have the railway at Karasburg running past Kakamas, and then from Cape Town to Bitterfontein. We are not asking for a new line, but only for a connection, which will come in any event, be it now or later. It is one of the most necessary connections in the country. We cannot understand why the Minister of Transport did not, at an earlier stage, decide to extend the line this short distance. Representations have been made in the past to previous Governments and also to this Government, and I have often wondered whether we would be able to persuade future Governments to build this important connection. In Namaqualand there are enormous mining works. There we have the copper mines. It is one of the meat larders of the Union. I have already endeavoured to explain that tens of thousands of slaughter-stock come from Namaqualand. Some of these animals have to be driven a distance of 200 miles and they are such an uneconomical proposition when they arrive at Bitterfontein that it is hardly worth while sending them any further. In the past there has been a process of exploitation at work, which is very unfair towards the North-West. There is a network of railways throughout the country. Those who travel through the country will agree with me that throughout the land we have a network of railways, but the North-West, which is almost as big as the Free State and which is overcrowded, where there are huge farms, there for the past twenty years we have had a process of exploitation. Minerals such as copper, an essential mineral, have been extracted from the soil. Diamonds have been discovered and exported, I wonder what the total output of Alexander Bay and Kleinsee amounts to. It is certainly no less than £100 million. In comparison with other parts of the country, I contend that no other part represents such an asset to the State as does Namaqualand, and why is the process of exploitation allowed to continue without ever anything being done in return? The least the Minister can do is to build this junction for these parts, not by way of compensation but because undoubtedly it is justified by the output. Other parts will also derive benefit from it. I would like to express our appreciation of the copper mining enterprise. It is a company floated in the United States of America, but it is certainly a boon for the surrounding districts. One feels that this company values this district more than our own Government. In this connection we have a soft spot for the United States of America, because there all and sundry are given work. The copper mine is really a boon in the sense that young people are taken on and paid good salaries, and the houses in which they are accommodated are an example for us. Here we have an example of what a foreign company has done for Namaqualand, and how they have taken an interest in those parts. I look forward to the day when our Government will hold out a helping hand to this portion of our country which has been so shamefully neglected in the past. We feel that the time has arrived for the Minister to take action and solve this difficulty so that Namaqualand will no longer have to come hat in hand every year to beg and pray for this railway junction to be built. I cannot find adequate words to stress the necessity for this junction. By doing this, the State will not sustain a loss. It will open up those parts. The mines will go ahead enormously; it will be a benefit and a source of indirect revenue to the conutry. Today these parts have to struggle along with lorry transport from Bitterfontein to Springbok. The roads are bad. A month after they are repaired they are again corrugated and the surface has been blown away. The transport has to cover long distances and it is impossible to keep the vehicles in good condition. It is an unending drudge, and while other parts of the country enjoy railway facilities, Namaqualand has earned this railway connection, especially having regard to the fact that in the last 20 years approximately £100,000,000 worth of diamonds has been deposited in the Treasury. For this reason we feel justified in approaching the Minister and I trust we will have the assurance from him that when further railway connections are being planned, ours will be the first to be considered. There are many other matters which I ought to touch on, but I will discuss them at a later stage. Yesterday I made an urgent appeal to the Minister that suitable stations should be built at Bitterfontein and Vredendal. I want the Minister to realise the urgent necessity for this provision. It is a disgrace that the officials should be compelled to work in these corrugated iron hovels. I would like the Minister to pay a visit to these parts. Then he would see the congestion and the discomfort in which the officials do their work. He will also find that other facilities are necessary, for instance in connection with transport. We appreciate what the Minister has done in the past. We appreciate every small assistance. When at times there has been a large accumulation of goods, he has assisted us with trucks, but it only lasts a week and then we are obliged to wait another 14 days before goods can be railed again. The people experience great difficulty in not being able to send their goods away. We hope that with the huge profits the railways are making trucks will be purchased to extend facilities while the opportunity is at hand.

There is a matter of considerable importance to a portion of my constituency, to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention, and that is the acute shortage of trucks on the KrantzkopGreytown-Maritzburg line. The Minister will perhaps know that last August representations were made for an increase in the truck supply, and the Railway Department was good enough to send an official down who attended a meeting with me at Dalton. Although we were promised that an alleviation in the position would be effected, I regret to say that today the position is infinitely worse than it was last August. I know that great demands are made on the Railway Administration for trucks these days, but may I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that that particular line serves a farming community which is almost entirely dependent upon its timber and bark supplies for its income, and anything that would retard a reasonable flow of trucks to this area must of necessity be the cause of financial embarrassment. I would urge upon the Minister therefore, to do his best to see if the Railway Department cannot in some way meet the demands and the requirements of that area. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe that that particular line from Pietermaritzburg to Greytown and Krantzkop, is the best paying branch line for its length in the whole of the South African Railways. Therefore they are entitled to a little more consideration than what they have received up to the present. As I have said, that particular community is dependent upon bark and timber for its income, and I would urge the Minister therefore to do his best to give assistance, and not to disappoint the Minister of Finance in his expectations of income for next year. I would further urge the Minister to do his best in order to bring about so desirable a state of affairs, that no grounds for complaint remain.

In the earlier stages of this debate my friend the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) took this House on a very nice little tour of various railway centres in the Union, and explained what progress had been made in the work that has been undertaken at various centres, and he also described the anticipated programmes in regard to others. Unfortunately he left out East London. In consequence I can only think that it was a second class tour. I should like to thank the Minister for the anticipated programme that is about to be embarked upon in respect of East London. He made us a promise last year that we were going to have new reconstructed workshops and we were going to have that very much needed station. May I make a special appeal to him that the improvements should be expedited. The conditions under which those men are working in the workshops are very deplorable. Last year I described those conditions as resembling the Black Hole of Calcutta, and it is regrettable that these conditions still exist. I know that he cannot move just one part of the workshops, as the work of reconstruction must be undertaken in its entirety. I believe that I am reflecting the wishes of the people of East London when I say that if delay is inevitable it should rather be the station than the workshops that should suffer delay in the meanwhile. I should like to associate myself with the sentiments of the hon. member for Uitenhage when he praised the artisan and associated classes of the railway staff for what they had done towards the furtherance of South Africa’s war effort. I am sure we are all proud of what the engineering section have achieved, both in the field and in the workshop, and there is no doubt that the activities of the engineering sections in the field have placed South Africa’s name in the forefront for all time. I should like now to make an appeal to the Minister on behalf of a section that falls within his purview, but which I am afraid has been forgotten during this debate, and which in fact has been sadly neglected during these war years. I refer to the pensioners, particularly those who are just over the £200 mark and consequently deprived of the cost of living allowance. It is to my mind regrettable that these men who have given the best part of their lives rendering good and honest service to the State, and who are now drawing a meagre pension, should be deprived of cost of living allowance. There is no doubt that this absolutely affects their table, and it is unreasonable that they should be in a worse position than inmates of penal institutions in this respect, that while the inmates of penal institutions have sustained no reduction of their ration, these pensioners have. I have a letter from a member of my constituency, a man who draws a pension of £8 6s. a month. He is one of those enterprising fellows, and he has attempted to augment that very meagre pension by taking on a job operating a lift, for which he gets a further £8 a month. But owing to the fact that during his working years he was enterprising and thrifty, saved sufficient to buy a cottage, this man has been penalised through the miserable means test; this means test penalises the deserving and enterprising person and should be abolished entirely.

Hear, hear.

If I were asked to say what the means test really is I should say it is a proof of the meanness of those who apply it. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to these unfortunate people, and at least raise the level to a higher maximum than £200 on which cost of living allowance can be paid. I have discovered many instances in my constituency of pensioners who are too old to undertake work of any kind and cannot augment their income in any way. They are dependent on their small pension and in consequence are hit hard due to the soaring cost of living; I think it must be admitted that the £ is only worth about 8s today. One can imagine the circumstances these less-privileged people are in today, and I would submit this for the Minister’s consideration. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to broach a matter that I know has been mentioned before during this debate. I would like to put in a plea for those men of the artisan staff who are handicapped or penalised owing to their inability to pass the language test, the bilingual test. In the case of men who are working with machinery and who are not brought into contact with the public, men whose ability runs on mechanical rather than linguistic lines, I personally think it is a shame that they should be debarred from improving their positions, even though their ability in their own particular sphere should entitle them to this. I do hope the Minister will give some consideration to that.

What about Afrikaans workers?

It may be Afrikaans artisans I am speaking about. Mr. Speaker, I should like on behalf of the shipping interests in East London to ask the Minister whether something cannot be done to relieve the present unfortunate situation. Our people have been very alarmed by a speech that was made in the first place by the Minister, and more recently repeated by no less a person than the Prime Minister, when both said it was the intention to utilise ports outside the Union more than they had done in the past owing to the congestion that was being experienced in Union ports. I should like to assure the House and the Minister that East London harbour has been ghost-ridden for the last three years. The amount of shipping that has been handled there has been negligible. We have instances of men having to be paid off by the various shipping companies and of suffering generally. As a matter of fact, one very important shipping agent in East London put it to me before I departed from East London to attend this Session of Parliament, that East London forwarding agents had been living on their fat for the last few years, but now it had come down to the very lean and he hoped something would be done to improve the position. I have letters here from two very reliable authorities in East London. I do not want to labour the House by reading them in full. There is a suggestion in one of these letters which appeals to me very strongly and which seems to show a way in which the Minister can render some assistance in alleviating the distress that East London shipping interests are suffering at present. The paragraph reads as follows—

I do submit to the Minister that something should be done to relieve the distress the shipping industry interests are experiencing at present. These people suffered and suffered willingly in the days when, as we know, our coast was dangerous, when convoys were essential and sinkings frequent. No voice was then raised in protest. But now that the position is becoming easier I feel that some opportunity should be afforded these people to again function as formerly, if not in full at least to a reasonable extent.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to his statement in connection with the Aviation Conference. In the first place I should like to say that I was disappointed to a certain extent at his statement being so cryptic, and because he did not give us more information. I think we are one the Parliaments who get least information. Other Parliaments, at least in the British Dominions, have received much more information. If one considers that we live in a country which spends £100,000,000 a year on Defence without any particulars being given, one realises how far we have progressed on that road. Now we receive a very cryptic statement from the Minister of Transport, and in my opinion he should have given us more information. In the first place I should like to know from him how far we have progressed in connection with aviation. Firstly, I should like to know to what the failure of the Chicago Conference, when 51 nations assembled, was due. Is one of the reasons perhaps that the British Dominions first held their conference in Montreal, as a preliminary, and that only after that the general conference was held, and that some of the nations who assembled in Chicago, were upset because the British Dominions had already previously discussed matters in Montreal. Let me put it this way : Is he now going to do the same that was done at Montreal in the interests of South Africa? Is he now holding a conference in Cape Town in connection with aviation in southern Africa before the great conference in connection with aviation in Africa takes place? Will the other countries south of the Equator, when the larger conference is held, be in the same position as those British orientated countries were placed in at Chicago? Any nation with self-respect which participated in the conference at Chicago asked itself the question I am asking now, seeing that the British Dominions had first assembled and discussed their affairs. Was the position that they had first discussed everything and then went from Montreal to Chicago as an entity with a predetermined plan? Must we expect the same from this conference in Cape Town, that this should be the purpose of the wider conference with other countries having interests south of the Equator? If that is so we may experience the same failure that there was in Chicago. I even heard the suggestion made that America probably would not be invited to the international conference which will be held after the one in Cape Town. That would be a curious state of affairs, especially as America takes an enormous interest in aviation regarding southern Africa. I regret to say that it appears to me as if the Minister is still living in pre-war times. He does not keep pace with the times. His course of action is one which might have been good before the war, but it will not work in respect of postwar plans. The Minister is living in prewar days when the British Empire was the outstanding power in the world as regards air bases and air routes, but since America appeared on the scene, circumstances have changed completely. The nameplate has been changed. Whereas the aircraft industry was the smallest of the great industries of the world, during the war years it has grown to one of the biggest industries in the world, one of the biggest amongst the big. That is one respect in which change has come about. Another aspect of the matter which has changed is that the whole of the post-war communications between the various countries will be based on aviation. Just in passing I want to state that the Minister of Finance said this morning that physically aviation has brought the world closer together. One is sorry that that cannot actually happen in view of the quarrels existing today between some countries. But the position is that various countries of the world busy themselves with the development of aviation and that it is felt that the development of the transport plane will be such that it will change the whole system of marketing and distribution, that the private aeroplane will change the whole existence of man. One does not say that that will happen immediately, but changes will come about. If one only thinks that one’s grandfather or great-grandfather required the same time to drive round his district with his cart and horses as it takes the second and third generation after that to go round the world, we see how fast changes take place in the world, and as regards aircraft the development is so amazing that that development has out distanced the whole state of affairs. The development of aircraft bases did not keep pace with the development of the aircraft itself, with the result that today more air routes are being thought of than there are bases which are already completed and can be used. I now want to point out to the Minister that he is not keeping pace with the development. If I may put it this way, he lives in the pre-war world as regards air craft. Hence the speech he held in Durban in October, of which I have extracts. He was on a tour of inspection in connection with the railways, and there he stated that civil aviation would be resumed in a few weeks with a fleet of large American aircraft, but later in his speech he said that an efficient and good air service which will include the whole Commonwealth in fact, and not only in name will be inaugurated. I cannot understand how he makes these two statements rhyme and I should like to learn how he reconciles the one with the other. All I can say is: Immediately at the end of the war to arrange for the incorporation of our air services with those of Britain does not keep pace with circumstances. In that case the Minister does not realise how important we have become as a country just recently. Just look at the large number of visits we receive just lately. People are swamping us. Commercial travellers from the highest circles are coming to South Africa in droves because South Africa is a strategic point as regards future air services. One begins to be afraid at all these people taking so much interest in us and wanting to draw the circle so close. Hardly had we had a visitor in connection with tele-communication, other visitors, who are interested in our measures as regards standardisation, arrive. We see that Lord Reith comes to our country and attempts are made to make the encircling wall narrower, and not only that but even Lord Swinton arrives here just as soon as we speak about air services, as also the Chairman of Imperial Airways in Britain, Lord Knowles.

Why not?

I have no objection to their coming here, but I am just pointing out how important South Africa has become.

And we must play our rôle.

Yes, but the Minister is still living in the pre-war period. Before the war we were not so important. Now they come and swamp us. It is not the American Minister of Aviation who comes to us; it is also not the Belgian Minister of Aviation who comes here. That I can also understand. But it is the British Minister of Aviation who takes all the trouble to come this long distance, and he is accompanied by Lord Knowles, to attend an aviation conference in Cape Town. Why do they do it? Just with one object. Those people have made their plans. They have worked out plans just like our Minister of Transport. Their plans are ready and it is in order to try to build an encircling wall round the British Empire as regards this matter and to do that as fast and they can. The guns have not yet stopped thundering in the war but they are here and they and the Minister have completed their plans. They want to hold a conference here, but they do not hold a conference between all the nations who are interested in aviation in this part of the world. It is a conference limited to the countries of the British Empire, and its fits in so well with what I read from the Minister’s Durban speech—“an efficient and complete set of air services, which shall be Commonwealth in fact and not only in name.” We must expect it of them. The Minister will attend this Cape Town conference, and what he will discuss is Commonwealth air services. We want to know what it means. One wonders why the Prime Minister should so suddenly acquire an Avro-York. Why was everybody so concerned that the Prime Minister should have an Avro-York, although South Africa had to pay for it? I never knew that those people would want to advertise in that way and that we would still have to pay for it. One would have thought that they would pay for their advertising themselves. If my information is correct, and the Minister can deny it if it is incorrect, then the position is this, that although the conference is to be held on 20th March, already people are on the way to go and fetch Avro-Yorks. Why? In order to fit in with a Commonwealth set of air services. If our aviation services must be a Commonwealth set of air services, then naturally the aircraft used by us must fit in with those used in that service. We must use the same aircraft as that service. Supposing that they come to Cairo, Khartoum, or even to Durban, as was the case previously, where we have to connect up with them, our aircraft must be the same. The Minister nods affirmately now. Therefore it is so. Now I should like to know whether there are other countries who take an interest in South Africa who will receive the same privileges. I suppose the Minister has already studied the map issued by Britain as regards the various air routes, and also the map issued by America as regards air routes. I will not take up the time of the House in dealing at length with these maps, but it would be a great tragedy that, when the thunder of guns has not yet died away, we should already hold a conference in connection with aviation in the same spirit as that which resulted in the failure of the first conference. It was represented that here and there agreement had been reached. But it still remains a fact that the conference in Chicago resulted in total failure. Why? Because Britain adopted the attitude which the Minister is now adopting here. Britain and South Africa co-operated, first held an Empire Conference in Montreal, and then went to Chicago to confront the Chicago Conference with a fait accompli.

I am busy negotiating with America.

I am glad to hear that. I hope that the Minister will negotiate with other countries, but why couple the whole matter with the British Empire? Why first convene a conference at which the other countries who take an interest in our aviation may not be present?

We are holding a conference with our neighbours.

Yes, but there are also other countries who have an interest in aviation in this part of Africa. Even before the war those countries were very interested in aviation in the southern portion of Africa. America had an air route to Leopoldtville; Belgium had an air service to the Congo; Portugal was so interested in aviation that it had a contract with British Airways. Even France was interested in aviation in Africa and had a service. All these countries I have mentioned are Interested in aviation in the southern portion of Africa. Now we find that Lord Swinton and Lord Knowles have been invited to this conference—I take it that he was invited as Chairman of Overseas Airways—while the other countries were not invited to take part in the conference. If the British Dominions in the southern portion of Africa now hold a conference to decide the matter, and then an international conference of all the nations interested in the southern portion of Africa is held, I ask the Minister what hope he has to make a success of such a conference, after the whole matter has been decided here in Cape Town? The Minister is losing sight of one fact, and that is that by convening such a conference of the British Dominions, he is taking the side of Britain in the quarrel which is in progress between Britain and America in connection with aviation. Has the Minister not yet learnt a lesson in this war? We thought that the Minister would have been imbued with another spirit in connection with aviation, but there has been no change in him, and that proves once more that the difference between this side of the House and the opposite side is enormous regarding these matters. As regards trade and aviation we want to co-operate with everybody, but the Minister and members opposite want to isolate us from the rest of the world within the British Empire. Their mouths are always full about it that we on this side stand for isolation, but the real state of affairs is that the Government wants to isolate us within the British Empire from the rest of the world, instead of giving us a chance to spread our wings wide. South Africa has never had an opportunity like the present in connection with aviation to open its doors to all the countries of the world. I say that the Minister is adopting a very wrong policy by closing our doors against the other states.

According to him we are still a British colony.

Yes. What strikes one is that this quarrel between Britain and America is assuming such proportions that a prominent British Member of Parliamen declared in the British House of Commons that unless this difficulty is solved it will still resolve itself in another Boston Tea Party. The situation is serious enough. The Minister has presumably seen what America’s reply was. Before the war Britain said that the sun never sets over its air routes; she says so again. What was America’s reply? Before the war America confined itself to the Pacific Ocean and to the two Americas. But now, through lease-lend, it has obtained the right from Britain to build war bases in many parts of the world, and what does America do? It not only regards these air bases as lease-lend bases in Canada and in other British Dominions, but it also wants to use them after the war. I have a map here of the air routes America wants to use after the war. Well, if Britain says that the sun will not set over her air routes, I can only say that America can say that neither the sun nor the moon will set over her air routes. The British map looks like a spider’s web stretching to all possible parts of the world. America’s map practically follows the footsteps of the British routes, but it goes still further. It has one air route from New York over the North Pole to Moscow, which Britain has not got. Then it has one over the South Pole to Australia, and the British map does not show that. It is remarkable that it also has a direct route from New York to Cape Town via Brazil and Ascension Island. Seeing that the Minister is now continuing with this narrow conference, what position is he going to create for us? What will our position be as regards America and other countries who also want to base their air routes on South Africa? I shall be glad if the Minister would give a considered reply as to what his plans are in connection with those countries who want to base air routes on South Africa, especially America, because America is already the leading air power of the world. We dare not leave America out of consideration in connection with future aviation. Before the war Britain controlled the cross-roads of air traffic. America is now taking its place everywhere. Why? During the war England was obliged to concentrate on the building of bombers and fighter aircraft. Russia concentrated on the production of land arms, tanks and other war material. In other countries they did other things—I only mention these few. But America both before the war and during it concenrated on the production of large transport planes and passenger planes, with the result that in the midlle of the war we have this position, that America could supply the world with a tremendous air transport service. We know that during the battle of El Alamein, when General Montgomery needed anti-aircraft guns, American aircraft delivered those anti-aircraft guns within five days, so that they could still play their rôle in the battle. If those guns had to be transported by sea via Cape Town it would have taken at least three weeks, and at least one writer says that the guns would then have arrived too late for the battle. That shows how tremendously America has developed its cargo aircraft service, so that it could perform well-nigh unbelievable things in this war. I do not want to weary the House with figures, else I could have indicated in what tremendous measure American aircraft have developed in this respect. The fact remains that America developed her passenger and cargo aircraft, and we cannot regard it otherwise but that she will be head and shoulders above the other countries in this respect oafter the war. America will control the coss-roads of air transport after this war with its aircraft.

Do you want us to sell out to America?

No, I do not want US to sell out to America. What I want to do is to prevent the Minister from putting an encircling wall round the British Empire, including South Africa. The Minister knows that formerly in the history of Africa there was the so-called scramble for Africa on the part of European countries to obtain territory here. It really seems as if, as regards aviation, we are again going to have a scramble for Africa. We already have competition between Britain and America. There will be competition between Britain and America as regards aviation in the southern portion of Africa, and as one writer has already expressed it, there is competition between these two countries “for modern Imperialism in the air.” There is a sort of air imperialism which affects us, and for that reason I say that the Minister is playing a dangerous game if he is busy binding South Africa to one of these two sides. The Minister gives the impression that he is taking sides in the quarrel which there is between America and Britain. It is peculiar to see what justification there is from the side of one of the prominent daily newspapers which supports the Government. Peculiarly enough this paper says in its leading article that the Minister must first hold this conference and then he must invite those people in the southern portion of Africa who have a different nationality to a conference. It refers to people who belong to another nationality, as if the South African has the same nationality as the British subject in Kenya. They are British subjects and they are satisfied to be such, but why juggle with words here and say that on 20th March a conference will be held of all those who have the same nationality, and that those with another nationality cannot attend this conference. At what stage can the citizens of South Africa attend such a conference?

I suppose we will be regarded as having British nationality.

Yes, the hon. member is regarded as a British subject. I repeat that America has very great plans I do not know whether the Minister has looked at the plans of Pan-American Airways. At the moment it is the largest aviation company in the world. We see that Pan-American Airways expand all over the world. There is an indication which is clearly indicative of the whole tendency of American aviation. In 1927 this company, when it was still small, evolved an emblem. It was the American eagle which covered the two Americas with its wings. Today is no longer has that emblem. It still retains the American eagle, but it is significant that that eagle no longer embraces the two Americas. Its wings now embrace the entire globe. That indicates in a significant manner the development which took place in America between the years 1927 and 1942. America announces that its cargo planes and passenger aircraft have developed to such an extent that it estimates that within three years after the war its aviation can be increased by 300 per cent. I compare that with Britain’s aviation. Between 1930 and 1939 America trebled its air routes in America alone. During this war America extended its passenger transport to 3,000,000 miles. It is almost unbelievable that while the other nations wage war, while they make bombers and fighters, America in addition to all that still managed to increase its number of passenger planes and cargo planes to such an extent that it could cover 3,000,000 miles inside America. That gives us a slight indication of the development taking place in America and how it came about that America today finds itself in the favourable position of controlling the cross-roads of air transport in the world. There are a few other air routes to which I want to direct the attention of the House. I have already spoken about America, but there are also a few other countries who can participate in aviation in the southern portion of Africa, and who therefore are interested in the discussions which will take place in Cape Town. We must ask the Minister whether he has forgotten that a country like Belgium has an enormous interest in the aviation in Africa, and that it developed its air service on a large scale until just before the war. When we think of other nations we must also think of Belgium. Did the Minister think of France? France also had an air route and we dare not forget her. I presume that Portugal, which has a contract with Pan-American Airways as regards Portugal, and which entered into an agreement with British Airways as regards the southern portion of Africa, will also be interested in this aviation. I see that somebody in England wrote the following in the “Aviation Annual”—

Then there is a description of one along the West Coast, and the other along the East Coast, to Cape Town. I read that in order that the Minister may tell us, if he allows our air service to link up with the British air service on the West Coast, how it will enable him to link up with an American air service via Ascension or Dakar to Cape Town. If he agrees to a British route on the West Coast, he will undoubtedly tread on the toes of America. Our point of view is not that we wish to give preference to one country of the world. We say: Open the doors of South Africa, but retain South Africa’s outhority over the air services in the country. Open South Africa to all the countries of the world, and see what the best service is we can get, the fastest service, the most consistent service, and the best aircraft. By way of interjection the Minister said that he is negotiating with America. If that is so, then I cannot understand why he did not mention a word about the negotiations which are in progress when he made his statement in the House. I shall be glad if he in his reply would tell us plainly whether he is going to enter into an agreement with England regarding the West Coast route, or whether he is going to give it to America. I shall be glad if he would give the assurance that when on 20th March he goes to the conference, he will keep in mind that he will not co-operate with the British service both on the East Coast route and the West Coast route, but that he will at least keep open one route, that on the West Coast, for negotiations with America, which has developed so far in the sphere of aviation services.

I am quite prepared to negotiate with America.

I am glad to hear that the Minister is willing to offer America a route, but then he must be very careful about this conference on 20th March, and he must not give Britain both the East Coast and the West Coast routes. If he makes an agreement in connection with the East Coast route, we have no objection to it, provided it is an efficient agreement, but he must not shut the door to other countries like America, France, Belgium, etc., by simply drawing a ring round the British Empire by entering into agreements only with Britain. The Minister is in rather too much of a hurry. The war is not over yet but he is already buying Avro-Yorks. It is not right towards South Africa to face us with a fait accompli in this manner. The other question I wish to ask the Minister is this. Will subsidies again be paid to these air services? The Minister knows that he paid British Airways a subsidy, and I now want to know from the Minister whether he will revert to the pre-war system.

Are you now speaking about the Italian subsidy?

The hon. member knows to what I refer. I want to know from the Minister whether he is again going to pay a subsidy. The Minister knows what an unpleasant experience we have had in connection with subsidies. For 30 or 40 years we paid a subsidy to a British shipping company and even long after our mail was being transported by air we were still paying that subsidy. That is the subsidy to the Union Castle Company. I hope to ascertain from the Minister that if he is going to fit in our service with the British air service, if we are going to send our Avro-Yorks to meet their Avro-Yorks at Cairo, or wherever it might be, there will be no question of our paying a subsidy to them. If there has to be a subsidy, the subsidy should rather come from the other side, because they have the privilege of joining up with our service. I want to bring these few points to the Minister’s notice and I again want to ask him not to face South Africa with an accomplished fact on 20th March. The way I feel about the matter is that the Minister must realise that any agreement he enters into on 20th March with certain selected countries, will not bind a successive Government. I think it is only right that we should tell the Minister this so that the people who enter into those contracts with him will know and clearly understand that when he binds South Africa there, and when a ring is drawn round the British Empire, a successive Government will not consider itself bound by those agreements. Those agreements will therefore probably not remain of force for long, because this Government will not be in power for long. They cannot last too long. It is just as well that I say it here. The Minister must put it to those people that a future Government will not consider itself bound by agreements of that nature which are now being entered into with a group of selected nations. It is only reasonable to tell those people that so that they may clearly understand what the position is. We on this side of the House want no part in agreements which draw a ring round the British Empire, and the sooner those people understand that, the better. I want to associate myself with what was said here by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). When the conference is held on 20th March, we bonder whether the Minister will not consider doing what the Nationalist Party did in connection with the Ottawa Conference? On that occasion the Nationalist Government gave the S.A.P. Opposition at that time the opportunity to hold a watching brief as to what happened there. I associate myself with what was suggested by the hon. member for George, and we ask the Minister whether it will not be possible to give the Opposition the opportunity to be present at the conference. We do not want a seat at the conference, but we want to be present to keep an eye on matters in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, like every other representative my constituents have expressed grievances which I should like to put forward here. There are many more than I would like to put forward this afternoon, but may I deal first and foremost with what is taking place in those areas of undulating country with a high rainfall where the railways are concentrating large quantities of water in one channel through culverts under their railway lines, without making the necessary provision for the distribution of that water over a larger area. They are therefore contributing towards the many grievances which have been voiced in this House, where you have South Africa’s soil being concentrated, chiefly as the result of that, in the single furrows and so rushed off into the sea.

I must remind the hon. member of the notice of motion by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) dealing with soil erosion.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I cannot deal with that particular question, because it all hinges on that fact, the state that has now been created in our part of the country where you have the abandonment of 50 miles of line and it is left in the same condition as when it carried our trains. I shall, however, have to deal with that aspect of the case if I get an opportunity when the motion of the hon. member for Drakensberg again comes up for discussion. Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the question of the transport of stock over the South African Railways. I have made repeated representations on this matter, and I have asked for some relief, but unfortunately it has not been forthcoming. I should like to give the House actual instances of what is taking place today, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will see his way clear to give us some relief in the way of better and easier distribution of the stock than is taking place at present. I will take as an illustration trucks that left Umtata on the 16th February. The stock had been on the road for five days before being trucked. It arrived in Cape Town on the 22nd February at 11 a.m. Thus, the stock was in these trucks approximately seven days, and it was en route before it reached Umtata approximately five days. If stock railed from those remote areas has to spend that length of time en route and arrive in the condition that stock arrived at Cape Town, it cannot reasonably be suggested that your distribution of meat by those methods is going to contribute readily to the relief of your present position of stress in the terminal markets. It is not only in Cape Town that this is taking place; the same sort of thing is occurring at every terminal market in the country. The result is that the stock arrived at the terminal market with a loss in quality and loss in condition owing to the length of time it has had to travel. In the particular instance I have referred to, there were 225 animals in 22 trucks. We feel that when that number of stock is involved it should be possible to send them by fast train, and thus get them expeditiously to the terminal market. While on that point, I should like to stress a point that I stressed before, that in view of the fact that 99 per cent. of the stock being sent to the terminal markets has now to be railed to these terminal markets, it is time some relief should be given either in the form of a reduction in the railage, or alternatively, some principle should be introduced whereby the stock will be railed to its nearest market. However, I shall deal with that on another occasion. Mr. Speaker, I now want to carry on at the point where the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Latimer) left off in regard to the shipping problem we are faced with in the Eastern Province. East London has had approximately one ship a month for the last twelve months.

For the last three years.

I am now dealing with the period of the last twelve months. The area has had to rely, during that period on every item consigned to it being offloaded at Durban, Cape Town or Port Elizabeth and then being railed to the Eastern Province. In one instance alone the railage on one consignment of impliments was in excess of £3,000, and when it is realised that that railage must automatically be passed on to the consumers it will be appreciated what a difficult problem we are faced with in that particular area. No less a number than 1,339,000 of that population is in the Transkei area, and the other 250,000 in the remaining area, the inhabitants of which have had to pay an additional amount as a contribution by way of rail charges to the South African Railways when these cargoes have been discharged at other ports. There is only one more point I want to deal with at this stage, and that is the question of the railway staffs and the accommodation that is provided on the Cape Eastern system. It is generally believed in our part of the country—and I am beginning to believe it too—that we are the worst treated section of the South African Railways as far as coaches and general running is concerned. When I have travelled in some of these coaches I fully realised that we have every right to put forward our grievances here on this particular score. May I go still further and ask the Minister whether he will extend his consideration to the fact that we have a service only three times a week on the one line, and on the other line we also have a service only three times a week, to Port Elizabeth, but some ten hours more are occupied on the journey waiting at Port Elizabeth. So the route is longer via Stormberg and Rosmead. I have drawn the Minister’s atttention to the case of a member of this House who arrived at Queenstown on the Saturday and could not get a train till the following Tuesday morning. I could give the House instances of men who have appealed to me to try to assist them to get seats for fairly urgent business, and they have had to wait 21 days for that accommodation. We maintain that the service the Minister is giving us today is no better than the service we had in pre-war days, despite the curtailment of our other travelling facilities that we have had to put up with. I submit that we are entitled to additional and better rail facilities than we had in the past, in view of the shortage of other transport facilities.

It is not my intention to refer to the non-European railway workers during the present debate. Their case has been put before you, Sir, clearly and emphatically by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and it is so strong as not to need reiteration. My colleagues and I are awaiting with eager interest the reply by the Minister. I should like to touch on other and not so personal matters, but nevertheless matters of some importance. In the first place, it is believed that pressure is being brought to bear on the Minister’s department to prevent native people travelling by rail. I can understand that where health regulations are involved, the Railway Administration would have to see that these regulations are carried out. My impression, however, is that the intention is to curtail the ordinary travelling by rail of natives, and I believe it would have no legal sanction whatever. I trust that the Minister will not be a party to that attempt, and that he will preserve that freedom for people to travel. I think I am correct in saying that the native passengers are the backbone of the railway passenger traffic, and it is virtually the revenue from their fares that has enabled the Administration to maintain the standard of first and second class travelling that we at present enjoy. I feel therefore, that the native travellers on our railways are entitled to more consideration in the circumstances. I have watched them travelling eight to ten in a compartment. I should have thought it impossible for people to travel long distances under the conditions which they have to endure. We have promulgated health regulations prohibiting the gathering of natives, and yet we permit and compel from eight to ten natives to travel in the one compartment. Anything more calculated to spread disease and produce ill-health would be difficult to imagine. Notwithstanding the claims that are made in connec tion with the war, we feel that more accommodation could be made available for native passengers, and I want to ask the Minister to take that into consideration. On occasion I have seen a large number of native passengers simply bundled into the compartments. They are pushed in from the back. Indeed, one can almost imagine you can see the coaches expanding as they are crammed in. But in spite of these heroic efforts numbers of them are left behind, and this means a serious loss to the natives. They have not much money, and they cannot stay over and spend their money on food and lodging; they have to get on with their journey. A railway official at one of these places remarked that he could not get his passengers off in the trains because there were not the coaches available; it was a physicial impossiblity. Some improvement surely could be made, and with all confidence I ask the Minister to take it in hand. Mr. Speaker I want to refer, if I may, to a point that is of interest both to the European and native people of the Transkei. I should like to know what the policy of the department is in relation to railway development in that part of the country. The Transkei is lying there like a vast barrier reef between Natal and the Cape Colony, and we feel that vast country should have railway development, and that the day should not be far distant when that development should be embarked upon. We feel that a railway connection between Kokstad en Umtata is essential. Apart from tourist traffic, I would remind the Minister that there are 1,500,000 people who have to have food and clothing and the general necessities of life, and these goods are conveyed from various parts of the Union and sent to these rail heads for distribution. The long delays that are at present entailed in the distribution of these goods entails loss and inconvenience and does not make for the prosperity and development of the country. I feel that the time for railway development is due, and I trust that the Minister will give the matter his serious consideration. I should like to refer also to the need for a rail link between Maclear and the proposed Transkei main line at Qumbu. It would be an effective way of developing that part of the country. But in connection with the administration’s apparent intention to develop bus services instead of rail services and the useful purpose buses provide in various parts of the Transkei, I want to say that I am convinced that over long distances they will be unable to supply the country’s needs. The journey of 115 miles between Kokstad and Umtata takes 6 hours. You will appreciate that there are no conveniences on these buses, and men, women and children suffer discomfort by being cooped up in these buses for long periods. As far as the native people are concerned they have the halts en route, but there is no provision for sheltering them. At one of these places they have a 8 ft. tank with a hole in the top, and the passengers wait in it. When goods are brought they are just dumped on the side of the road. If the consignee is fortunate he gets his goods and if he is not somebody else may get them. I think we can ask the Minister to take these facts into reasonable consideration, and to accept that there is a case for making some provision for these bus passengers and for the safety of goods that are carried by them. Apart from that I want to ask for the improvement of the railway line between Amabele and Umtata. The train starts at 9 a.m. in the evening and arrives at 7 o’clock in the morning, after covering a distance of not much more than 100 miles. We have through our Transportation Act shut out competition with the railways in respect of that line, and I feel that when things are restored to normal, unless some other provision is made for travellers a considerable improvement will have to be effected on that line, so that the running of the trains can be accelerated if private motor competition is to be met. I will confirm what has been said about the conditions attending railway traffic in the Eastern Province. We feel that all the best attention and facilities have been devoted to the one line, the main line. When coaches are not considered good enough for the main line they are transferred to the Eastern Province section, and when they are not good enough for the Eastern Province line they are put on the Transkei line. When they reach that line I can assure the Minister they are by no means comfortable to travel in. I think the policy should be reversed. When you are travelling in a fast train some of these things are not so important, but when you are travelling a long distance on a branch line and the journey occupies many hours, you are much more in need of comforts than passengers on the main line. I would remind the hon. Minister that the Transkei, in view of the size of its population, is entitled to some consideration, and I ask him to improve the conditions of native travel. I ask him that if natives want to travel they should be allowed to travel, and I ask him that when they are given a ticket to travel they should be able to find accommodation on the train. I should be grateful if the Minister would give his attention to that triple request and to inaugurate a real policy of railway development for the Transkei.

I want to take the opportunity to bring to the Minister’s notice not only the housing conditions of railway workers but also the state of the station buildings in the Free State. It is so striking when one travels, and for example goes to the Transvaal, to Johannesburg, and one compares the standard of the stations along the line with the standard found on the platteland and especially in the Free State. It seemed to me as I sat and listened to the hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) when he mentioned the other day where all the large amounts are spent that the Minister or the Administration are following a policy which concentrates on the larger cities and which practically excludes the platteland. If one looks at some of the station buildings and offices it is a scandal to see how in our country, where one has such a large organisation as the South African Railways, such buildings are still in use and that it is expected of railway personnel, especially on the platteland, where the persons are on duty 12 hours of the day, that they should perform their duties in galvanised iron hovels through which the wind blows from one side to the other. The housing of railway workers also leaves much to be desired. I want to confine myself to local circumstances. I receive many complaints and transmit many of them to the Administration. Take a place like Kroonstad. Kroonstad is on the eve of great development. People are streaming into Kroonstad and the housing conditions there are serious. Recently, after there had been many difficulties as the result of inefficiency, for example, a checker was sent to Kroonstad, a man who understands his work and does his duty, and he brought relief there. What was the position however? He did not find it possible to live in the house offered to him. He could not find another house. The house which was available was such that no decent person would like to live there, no person who in any way wants to move in a decent circle. I very seriously want to draw the attention of the Administration to the housing conditions of the railway workers and to station buildings on the platteland. In my constituency there are quite a few places which are not worth soaking in oil and putting on fire. They are hovels in which people have to perform twelve hours of work per day. Furthermore, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) and as a farmer I join him in what he says. We have no objection to increased allowances to the personnel. It is something we pleaded for in past years. But I definitely want to raise objection to the increased tariffs not only being used for that purpose, but that we are now practically being asked to give preference to the farmers in neighbouring countries at the expense pf the farmers in our country. They must receive cheaper tariffs for transport, at the cost of our farmers. We as farmers have to put up with many difficulties, but every time the method adopted is that when there are difficulties the farmer has to pay and must help to carry the burden. We are the people who use the railways to a large extent, we are the people who will have to transport our products against increased tariffs, while our neighbours receive the benefit of the rebate. I hope that the Minister will seriously consider not granting benefits to people outside our boundaries at our cost. It is a serious matter. Finally, I want to plead especially for the lower-paid classes of railway workers. This year and last year there were complaints about the lift system and the salaries in the higher posts. But the people on whom the railways are really dependent are not those people, they are the lower-paid railway workers. I specially want to direct attention to their position, and to plead with the Minister that he must improve their position.

In rising to support the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood), I want to express the hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, because the hon. member revealed certain matters which require to be investigated. If the Minister does not accept the amendment it will undoubtedly leave a very bad impression amongst the people outside. We very badly want to know whether the accusations which were made are correct or not. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. The hon. member on my left (Mr. Latimer) said something to which I want to react. He pleaded that the Minister should not apply bilingualism to all sections of the railway service. I do not understand the hon. member. Last year they voted for bilingualism in the country, and now he pleads that unilingualism should be allowed in certain portions of the service. When I interjected he replied that he was referring to unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people. I have some doubt in that connection, but if it is so, it shows that we are justified here. We do not want unilingualism, not even on the part of Afrikaans-speaking people. There are a few other points which I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. It seems to me that the policy now is not to build more railroads in future, except when they are really essential or economic. I think that is a wrong policy As a young country we require much more development. There are still many areas where great development can take place, and if it is the policy of the Railway Administration not to build more railroads which can accelerate development, then the development will be much retarded. Last year I mentioned a few areas where great developments have recently taken place, while the facilities for transport are very weak. I want to mention them again and to express the hope that the Minister will make a statement in connection with it. We have, for example, the district of Vryburg, an area which has developed tremendously in respect of cattlefarming. It is an extensive area, and there is great need of a railroad. It is quite wrong to wait until towns develop and then to build the railroad. We must first create the means of transport and then the neighbourhood will develop. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration. We received a small ray of sunlight when the Minister of Finance said this morning in his Budget Speech that after the war there will be great developments as regards the railways. I hope that the Minister of Transport has not discarded the idea of building railroads, but that further railroads will be built and that this area will also be taken into consideration. Then there is a connection for which we have pleaded for a long time, namely between Mafeking and Lichtenburg. Today there is a branch line and we feel that we are not being treated fairly. At present we have a branch line which certainly does not satisfy the requirements of Lichtenburg. We have been struggling for many years to have that railroad connected with the line from Cape Town to Rhodesia. The area there has developed much in recent years. The farmers have cultivated their farms very well. Production has increased ahd we feel that there is a great need for means of transport. We should like to have a connection with the main line from Cape Town to Rhodesia. A rumour has been circulating that the Railway Administration intends to build a new line from Coligny to Klerksdorp. The people in that area were very glad when they heard of the plan of the Railway Administration to open up that connection. If that connection is made between Klerksdorp and Coligny and from Lichtenburg to Mafeking, there will be a great diversion; a large proportion of the traffic at present coming from the North can then go straight from Lichtenburg to Klerksdorp and straight down to Durban. It will relieve the heavily laden lines round about Johannesburg very much, and will also shorten the route to a large extent. I really want to plead that the Minister should take this matter into very serious consideration. It was thought that this railroad would be built and I want to give the Minister the assurance that that area in the Western Transvaal was very glad to hear it. They were pleased at the idea that a connection would take place, but now I understand that the Railway Administration refuses to build that line. Their policy is not to build any more new railroads. That will certainly be a very great disappointment to those people in the Western Transvaal. I want to express the hope that the hon. Minister should seriously consider that matter and that he will approve of those few connections. Where I plead for the building of a railroad between Mafeking and Lichtenburg, I just want to mention a few things which are necessary in my opinion. The ground in that area is very level. It is only 42 miles and it will not cost much to build a line. I do not think it will be necessary to build any bridges. It will be a very cheap line. Another point is that this railway has practically been promised to Lichtenburg for many years. At the time the side line was built one of the representatives of the Government said that it would only be a temporary side line, that the object of the line was to link up with the North; and it is already more than 30 years that this line has existed and we are still landed with a branch line. I say it is not reasonable that a progressive town like Lichtenburg should have a branch line foisted on it. I want to express the hope that the Minister will seriously consider the matter and will make those few connections.

I would like to appeal to the Minister to give his consideration to Esselen Park. Esselen Park is the new training centre of the railways on the Rand, and there is absolutely no conveyance between East Rand and Esselen Park. We have the Pomona State apple orchards there, and I think it would be in the interest of the community and of the railway if there were an extension of the line from East Rand to Esselen Park, and I appeal to the Minister to give this matter his serious consideration. Then there are one or two other matters I should like to touch upon, firstly in regard to the acting foremen on the railways. It has been brought to my notice that there are quite a few cases where members of the railways have been acting as foremen for a considerable period. They are inconvenienced in that from time to time they are sent away for three months or more from their homes. I think if these people can act in that capacity for twelve months, they should be appointed permanently. I cannot see any reason why they should not be promoted to the rank of foremen if there are vacancies, and I am given to understand that vacancies do exist. I make an earnest appeal to the Minister to consider this matter. There is another matter I should like to touch on, and that is the Kempton Park station. The station is definitely inadequate to cope with the amount of work which has to be done in that station, and I hope the Minister will consider this matter as well. Then there is another matter, and that is the Benoni Railway Station which, I think is definitely out of date. It cannot give the public the services it should, and I appeal to the Minister to give this matter his very early attention. Then there is only one other matter which I want to raise by way of a reply to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen). The hon. member made a statement yesterday in connection with overtime which, it is alleged, is not paid to railway employees. I happened to be fortunate enough to get the time sheets of the month of February, from which it is quite clear that these people are paid overtime. During the week they are paid time and a half and on Sundays they are paid double time, so it is not correct to say that they are not paid at overtime rates. I would like to ask the Minister at the same time to consider the position of the lower paid people on the railways. I think we are justified in asking the Minister to give the question of increasing their wages serious consideration.

At this stage of the debate there is practically not much more of an explosive nature to be said. Nevertheless I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to a few matters which appear in the report of the Auditor-General. First of all I wish to express my appreciation for a few services which the administration inaugurated in order to relieve the condition of the personnel. In the first instance I refer to the brochure which was issued recently and to which reference has already been made in this House, from which it emerges that the administration practically instituted a system of social services for officials and their dependants. By that means very good services can certainly be rendered to the personnel. But not only is appreciation expressed for the services which have been rendered; there is another aspect which will probably have to flow from this. I mean that these services may be used as an experiment which can probably be extended in future. In many countries industry is entrusted with the duty of making provision for social work and social uplift work for the workers, not only during their period of service but also after they have left the service. I do not mean to say that the experiment must necessarily serve that purpose, but it can be considered later whether the services cannot be extended in other directions. Then I also want to express my appreciation to the administration for the personnel cafe at Johannesburg where provision is made for the serving of refreshments to a large number of officials who work far from the centre of Johannesburg. I think that is something which was also introduced by way of experiment, and I want to ask the Administration carefully to devote its attention to the advantages thereof, so that later it may be extended to other centra. When we rise to speak about railway matters we often feel inclined to apologise for the rôle which the railways play in the economic life of South Africa, and I do not want to make that apology here, because I know that the House is tired of this debate; nevertheless, keeping in mind what I want to say later, I want to remind the people outside of the tremendously important rôle played by the railways in our economic life. In the first instance we have here a State institution with a capital investment of appreciably more than £200,000,000, a State organisation which in every respect must serve as a model, an organisation about whose administration no unfavourable criticism should be able to be uttered. If other undertakings in South Africa were to be able to find an example in the inefficient administration of the railways, there is justification for them, because the State can be expected to put an example. I say we have here a State organisation with that capital investment, with a personnel of workers of over 140,000, with an annual income of over £52,000,000, an organisation which plays such an important rôle in our State’s life that we can practically regard it as a state within a state. There is not a single aspect of our economic life which is not influenced by the railways as such. As a link in distribution it is a factor in our economic life. As a link in distribution there can at any time be an interference with supplies, a bottle-neck which makes marketing difficult. Therefore I say that when we speak about the railways in this House we do not want any unfavourable criticism to be uttered. The Minister will tell me that nobody is perfect, but I especially want to refer at the moment to a few aspects which have already been referred to, and that is in regard to the position of the personnel. Last year the Minister told this House that he alone knew what the spirit was amongst the personnel. The previous year I did not participate in the debate because I regarded myself as practically a newcomer to the House and because I did not have contact with the personnel as a whole. I now want to inform the Minister, as one who is responsible together with him for the welfare of the nation, that the esprit de corps, the relationship of the personnel inter se, that high opinion of the services of the railways, is being seriously undermined. I am not holding him personally responsible, but I want to deal with a few aspects of his administration in connection with which I want to allege that he, as a businessman, knows that the head of the management, who must keep his finger on the pulse of every aspect of the movement, cannot do so in this case, but that he is still held responsible for the development which is in progress. Without doubt there are serious deficiencies in the system of promotion of officials. I cannot quote cases in the House, although I know of them. I know that appointments are made—I can allege that appointments are made which are not economical and which are designed solely to give certain officials preference. A little while ago people were appointed in Johannesburg to work in certain places for the sole purpose of obtaining promotion by those means. Secondly, there is very clear evidence of espionage amongst the workers. If it is discovered that someone in a certain spot is too much of an Afrikaner or that he is making contact with the Afrikaners in the neighbourhood, he is simply transferred from there. I did not bring the matter to the notice of the Administration directly; I told others who gave me the information that they should see the Administration about it. I want to ask the Minister, as a man of honour, to give attention to this development which is in progress, or which happens in certain cases at least, and to see to it that an espionage system is not maintained in the railway service—the more so as we are all proud of the organisation and want it to occupy its legitimate place in the life of the nation. I said that I would like to pass a few remarks with reference to the report of the Auditor-General. Having known the Minister previously as a big businessman, one with a high reputation in the world of commerce, I want to express my personal opinion to him that as a result of the position in which he is placed, he does not today devote enough attention, as a great businessman, to the links between him and the execution of his duties. He will appreciate that this suggestion is not a condemnation but the hints of a friend. I hope he will accept it as such. During his tenure of office as a Minister he has not applied the same sound business principles to the railways as he applied to his own business. He proved that the necessary supervision is lacking. I refer to certain remarks made in the report of the Auditor-General about the Department of Railways and Harbours. I refer to subparagraph iv on page 5, “Omission to reflect in the Estimates the full costs of assets and contributions thereto.” There we find a peculiar indication of a serious deficiency in the supervision and control and writing-up of funds. In this paragraph we are told that there were contributions from the British Government, contributions from a Government outside South Africa, contributions for the construction of property of the Union of South Africa for the building of two dry docks in Cape Town and in East London. This contribution, in the case of the Cape Town dry dock is approximately £750,000. In the case of East London it is £429,000. Evidently reference was made to these amounts in a note added to the 1942-’43 additional estimates, and never again. Here we have an instance of the British Government contributing to the construction of works in South Africa, appreciable contributions. They are contributions which cannot under present circumstances be handed out as presents. These contributions are referred to by means of a note in the 1942-’43 Additional. Estimates, and were not again brought to the notice of the House. I now ask the Minister: Why this secrecy? Those of us who dealt with railway matters know that a dry-dock can practically never pay anywhere. If it was a condition in the construction of the works that Britain, who will probably derive great benefit from it during the war period, made the contributions purely as a gift, why then was it kept a secret? There can be no question of the British Government in any way receiving proprietary rights in these construction works. The excuse is given that the Administration in fact intended to lay the matter before Parliament at a later stage. This House has the right to know what is spent on our construction works. I consider that the Auditor-General has indicated a serious omission here in that for two years no mention was made of these contributions, and in this connection I think the House has the right—it may be that at the time the House approved of it, I was not here—but I do think that in view of the secrecy involved in the matter I would be justified to ask under what conditions these contributions of £750,000 was made for the Cape Town dry dock and £429,000 for the East London dry dock. Is there an agreement between the Union Government or the Railway Administration and the British Admiralty? I think the House is entitled to know whether such conditions exist. There may possibly be a period of free service; it may possibly be that Britain will pay less compensation for the use of the dry docks. I think the House and the nation outside have the right to know this. I just want to say that the reply which is said to be the reply of the General Manager is very unsatisfactory in not saying more about the matter at this stage. On the same page of the Report of the Auditor-General in sub-paragraph (vi), somehing else is mentioned, namely that the British Admiralty asked the Railway Administration in South Africa to build a shed over the slipway at Buffalo Harbour, a shed and also certain motor-launches. In connection with the building of this shed the British Admiralty requests our administration to erect a temporary building to cost not more than £1,500. Evidently the matter was entrusted to a temporary official; the execution of this order was entrusted to the Acting Harbour Engineer, and this official, in his own discretion, instead of erecting a temporary building which would cost approximately £1,500 erected a building which cost £5,821. When this amount was brought to the attention of the British Admiralty, they said that that was not what they ordered. Both the chief mechanical engineer and the system manager, East London, condemned the construction. They say it was not necessary, but then there is a statement which in my opinion completely evades the point, namely that it may be of use later. The question is not whether it may be of use later. The question is who authorised the Port Engineer to exceed the instructions; who authorised him to spend State money in this manner and to exhibit such a reckless lack of a sense of proportion in erecting a shed costing £5,821 when he had instructions to erect a temporary building to cost £1,500; and then we also want to know what punishment was meted out in this case. If every official in the railway department can handle State money in that way, especially in view of the fact that the railways are today being used as a taxing machine, I do not know what may happen to the railways and how the taxpayers will react to it. The amount involved here is only approximately £5,000, but the principle is an important one. I am sure of it that the Minister would never have tolerated anything like that in his private business, and where he is responsible for State money, he will have to apply the same care unless he wants to be accused of being lax. I do not want to accuse him of being lax, but I honestly want to say that he allows himself to be led too much by people who have not the same sense of responsibility that he has. I now briefly want to draw the attention of the House to the remarks of the Auditor-General on page 7 in connection with the Kaalfontein Training Institute. I leave the matter there. I now want to ask one more question, where the Minister as a businessman has once permitted, under pressure, that the railways, contrary to the constitution, has today become a taxing machine, where under pressure he consented to allow it, I want to ask him whether he is willing to allow the railways to continue to be used as a taxing machine in contravention of the constitution which lays down that the railways must be used in the service of the nation. There is now just one more point on which I wish to touch in connection with the report of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General refers to the purchase of a piece of ground in Pretoria on which to build an hotel, which ground was bought at a cost of £44,500; and I do not want to discuss the purchase of the ground. I want to discuss the principle as to whether the railways would be justified to enter into the hotel trade. It is quite probable that when the Minister asked for funds in this House for the development of his plan there will be time enough to discuss this matter. But in connection with this expenditure of capital for a purchase of ground for hotel building which will probably be of a luxurious nature, I think I would be neglecting my duty, especially in view of the need existing amongst the workers also of the constituency represented by me, where living conditions existing today are unsatisfactory, if I do not criticise this purchase of ground for luxurious hotels until proper provision has been made for the housing of railway officials. In the constituency I represent the Minister did his best and houses are being built from time to time, and I appreciate it. I give him credit for it, but recently I was informed that there were 45 officials in the railway service who had no houses, that a large number of them must live in the town, outside the railway area, and that there are 15 of them who are incapable of obtaining proper housing, 14 of them being married officials. I understand that permission has been granted for approximately five houses to be built. I do not want to enter into details, but the fact is that there is a serious shortage of housing, and I am only referring to one place. I think I would be neglecting my duty if I did not lay stress on this aspect, in view of the general shortage of housing in the country, that we should not permit the Administration to buy ground for the erection of luxury hotels before provision has been made for the proper housing of the personnel. And while I am on this point I just want to ask the Minister what his plans are in regard to the development of a coloured township in the same neighbourhood. It is difficult to find words with which to describe the circumstances existing there. I understand that the Minister has already made provision for the development of a model township, but it seems that all the plans which were made for the development of a model township have been withdrawn.

In what area is that?

In Touws River. I think the Minister was in that area himself. Whether it applies to coloureds or not, conditions there are so unbearable that it can only be a breeding ground for consumption. I hope the Minister has not abandoned his plans for developing a model township there and that he will try not only to resume this matter but to do so as soon as possible. If the model township can be built, I will try to help to house others who today live in that vicinity. I wanted to bring these few matters forward for consideration by the Minister. It contains nothing explosive, but in my opinion it is contemptuous of the sound business principles which should be applied to the railways. With a view to the increasing competition to which the railways will be exposed, competition by shipping and aviation and also of developing motor traffic, I again want to ask whether the time has not dawned for the Minister and his advisers once again to consider instituting a Redemption Fund. The railways have an interest-bearing capital of £170,000,000. I know what the point of view of the Administration is. They try to safeguard their capital by keeping their capital assets in good order. Assets can only earn income when those assets are being used. No matter in what perfect order the assets may be, if they are not used, they cannot earn income. With an eye to the dangers of competition from all sides in the future, the question of the creation of a Redemption Fund should once more receive the attention of the Administration.

I would just like to appeal to the Minister, seeing that there is a shortage of food in the country, that we people who produce food in the Northern Transvaal should be given an opportunity of delivering the goods either in Johannesburg or in Cape Town as quickly as possible. If I may say so, we produce a tremendous lot of paw-paw and other perishables and if the stuff could be brought down to Cape Town much quicker than is being done at present, we can provide ample food for the people in Cape Town.

Man cannot live on paw-paw alone.

We will deliver the other goods also. I am very glad indeed that the Minister of Railways has been so considerate as to give farmers an opportunity, when we could not get fertilisers, to transport the necessary manure. I appeal to the Minister not only to give these facilities in connection with manure but also in regard to irrigation plant. When we have these plants brought from the coast we are charged a different rate from commercial rates. I feel that something should be done also with regard to crude oil and lubricating oil necessary for irrigation plants. I say that we can provide the food necessary, but where this food is grown out of season it does not last as long as it does if it is grown in a cold climate. There are delays in transport, which result in the food going bad. I know these delays are not due to the Minister, but I think something should be done in that direction to improve matters. People work at night to convey the stuff to the stations but with the breakdowns we have at present there is a certain amount of delay. We have certain figures here before us with regard to transport planes. If planes could be obtained to bring these perishables from the far north to the different centres which are in want, I do think that the townspeople will be more than grateful indeed if they can get fresh fruit and vegetables on their tables so that they need not wait for the Railway Administration to bring the produce, which involves a delay of two or three days. From Louis Trichardt and Tzaneen stuff can be brought to Johannesburg in two hours by plane, and can be landed there quite fresh. It would be a great boon to these people to have fresh fruit and vegetables. For the information of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) I want to tell him one thing. I do not think he knows that we are producing grapes and are putting fresh grapes on the tables of the people in July and August. I do say that we should give every encouragement to the people of the Northern Transvaal to grow them out of season fruit and perishables because they do not compete with any other part of the country, and therefore the townsmen will score heavily if they can get this fresh fruit on their tables, or delivered at their doors, at a reasonable price.

From time to time we have to vote certain sums of money to the Minister of Transport. We have no objection to it, but we want value for that money. There are a few minor points which I want to submit to him concerning the district of Marico. We have a goods shed there which is in a terrible condition. The shed is too small and the goods are piled on top of one another. The goods sometimes have to lie there for days and days before it can be transported to the town and the surrounding places. The shed is so inadequate that there is no room to keep the goods there for a few days. The staff also finds it very difficult. There are two checkers and six labourers, and they are so busy that they find very little time to relax a little or to have their meals. They are continually busy with the goods. I have been told that goods have lain there for as long as three months because the shed was absolutely packed owing to the lack of space. It will make us very happy in that area if an improvement can be brought about in the shed. The shed should be enlarged and improved, and the conditions prevailing there, as far as the labourers are concerned, should also be changed. There are various buses conveying goods to the town and also to other places. Goods have to be loaded and unloaded continually, and I am told that some days up to 100 tons of goods are handled, although there are very few labourers. We definitely expect the Minister to bring about an improvement in that respect. On some days forty truck-loads of cattle have to be loaded to Johannesburg. Then I want to bring another point to the notice of the Minister in connection with the road motor buses. They travel over distances of seventy, eighty and ninety miles, conveying perishable foodstuffs. We have repeatedly applied for improvements, but no improvement has yet been made. The position there is critical. Some time ago I made representations to the System Manager with a view to seeing whether an improvement could not be brought about, and I received a reply from him dated 23rd September. I want to read this letter to the House and express the hope that the Minister will give his attention to it with a view to ensuring that all possible efforts are made to effect an improvement—

I must say that the position is very bad. We have the traffic there. Foodstuffs are conveyed in the bus, and natives are then crowded into it. Those natives are not educated natives. They are still very backward and practically without clothing. They are packed in in such a way that there is hardly standing room, and they have to find a seat on the cream cans. I have repeatedly spoken to the station master in connection with this matter and I have also written about it, and the reply I got was that there were no vehicles. I suggested that a trailer with a hood should be used for the conveyance of the cream cans, so that they would be protected against the sun. I did my best, but apparently there is no means of improving the position. If we had such a trailer, the cream cans could be placed in the shade and the passengers could then travel apart. It is inconvenient and unpleasant to consume foodstuffs on which natives have been sitting. It is an unfortunate state of affairs and I hope and trust that the Minister will make an effort to bring about a change. Then there is another point which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is in connection with the poor whites who are employed on the railways. They receive a meagre wage. It has been stated here that there are more than ten thousand who are still getting less than 10s. per day. These people were appointed to work. They get this meagre wage, and in addition to that they only get fourteen days leave of absence per annum, while the clerical staff is entitled to a month’s leave. I cannot see why those people who sacrifice their energies and health should not get the same privileges. I do not begrudge the man in the office a month’s leave, but I should like these poor people to get a month’s leave too, so that they can enjoy a proper holiday once a year. They told me that fourteen days a year is not worth much to them. They are poor people, and by the time they have arranged everything their holiday is nearly over and it is no longer worth their while to go away. I trust the Minister will give his attention to this matter and try to meet those people. Various members have spoken in regard to railway Unes. For many years in the past we made representations in connection with a railway line in Marico. We want a connection between Lichtenburg and Zeerust and an expansion to the northern parts of the Bushveld. That railway line is necessary. We produce meat in those parts to the value of something like half a million pounds per annum. It is in that part of the Bushveld, and we shall be glad to have the privilege of getting a railway line through those parts, with a connection to Lichtenburg. I hope we shall succeed and that the Minister will give his attention to these few matters I have mentioned.

It is generally conceded, and I think there is no gainsaying the fact that after this war tremendous industrial expansion will take place. I can assure this House that Port Elizabeth, which is the biggest industrial city in South Africa today, with the exception of the heavy industries, will be in the forefront. We have at the moment the biggest boot factories in the country. We have plants assembling motor-cars, General Motors and Ford. There is the biggest tyre factory in South Africa. Port Elizabeth is the home of the boot factories. General Motors have a large building programme of expansion. I will not be surprised if it runs into millions. The Ford Motor Company will also extend their factory. There is an electric globe factory to be established, as well as a canning factory and other factories. Next to Port Elizabeth, as a suburb of it, I may say there is Uitenhage where there are wool washeries which have been established for a generation, and the textile wool factory will be established there as well as a very large boot factory. All this will mean increased traffic through the ports and throughout the country, and it is for this reason that I again plead with the Minister not to delay any longer with the regrading of the Midlands line up to De Aar. A considerable section has been done. If this were carried out in toto it will mean that more traffic could be carried at a much cheaper rate. I am glad to notice that considerable progress has been made with the local workshops and marshalling yards there. I would like to appeal to the Minister to see that all social amenities for all sections of the railway personnel will be catered for there, and there will be dining rooms for all, and proper washing facilities will be provided. In the past the Railway Institute we have in Port Elizabeth has functioned splendidly but we all admit that it is not up-to-date any more, and it is for that reason that I hope that very full provision will be made to bring this Institute up-to-date, and that provision will be made for all social amenities there. As regards the harbour at Port Elizabeth it is the best harbour in South Africa, but it is proving to be not large enough any more.

You have not looked at Cape Town yet.

I invite the member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) to visit us. He will see for himself. But we are not satisfied to rest on our laurels. We have had a survey made of the harbour area with the object of getting on with the foreshore reclamation works. If this were carried out it would very materially assist the harbour facilities there, and it would provide also a site for the new station and for the new Post Office that the Government has decided to build at Port Elizabeth. We still have the Dutch Company here which did the reclamation work at Cape Town and I feel sure that they will be only too keen to tender at a reasonable figure for the reclamation work there, and where the Department has perhaps had a little trouble in Cape Town with the local authorities with regard to the lay-out and the price to be paid for the land, I do not think that the up-to-date citizens of Port Elizabeth will cause any of that sort of difficulty; and what is more there is a realisation that what that reclaimed land will bring in might just cover all the money to be spent there. I do feel that with this expansion that is to take place the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth line should be doubled and electrified. There is already a lot of traffic on the line and with the future development it will be very necessary. I understand that the material used on the Rand-Pretoria electrified line will perhaps have to be replaced, and I think we can at first use that between Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth. I would like to draw the Minister’s attention also to the difficulty of travelling between Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. In the first place I think that is due to the fact that it is not yet a main line. It takes us about 34 hours to travel the distance of round about 600 miles. We are really very envious when we see that between Durban and Cape Town, a distance twice as much, the journey takes only five hours more. That journey of 1,275 miles takes 39 hours, but the 600 miles to Port Elizabeth takes 34 hours. I would like to express my deep appreciation for the betterment of the conditions of the coloured workers. Five or six years ago they received a wage half of what they are getting today. I do not want to imply thereby that everyone is satisfied. I do feel that we should get past the stage where these people are looked upon only as casual labourers, and I would ask that an investigation be made so that they can find a venue for their work which will be on other than a temporary basis.

In supporting this amendment, I should like to regard the whole question of the Railways objectively. It has been said correctly that the Railways undoubtedly constitute one of the most important undertakings in our country. It is the biggest undertaking of the State. We have invested more money in the Railways than in any other undertaking, and we would be neglecting our duty if we as a House did not give our attention to this undertaking of the State. I should like, therefore, to view this matter entirely objectively and to deal with it on that basis. We hoped that the Minister would furnish us with fairly full information in introducing the Bill, but his speech was very brief and he confined himself principally to the air agreement. When we put our amendment, he appointed certain speakers on his side to reply to our arguments, and I just want to pause briefly at those replies. As you know, our Railway system is of very great importance to our industrial life in the country both during and after the war. It is indispensable to our industrial development. The State has a monopoly of our transport, as far as our Railways are concerned. Not only is our transport by rail important, but also our transport by bus, on which the Railways practically have a monopoly as well. That branch of our transport too, is very important. And now we come to the third factor, namely air transport. It is an important means of conveyance as far as our transport is concerned. It is essential since, in the struggle for existence, we have to take up our rightful place amongst the nations after the war by means of efficient services, and since we will be faced with competition, that we should equip our transport in such a way that it will comply with all the requirements. It is essential for us to put our transport in order, to put our house in order as far as transport is concerned. And in voicing criticism in regard to the present position of transport, we want the Minister to accept that criticism in the spirit that we are favourably disposed towards the transport system of our country, and not only are we favourably disposed towards it, but we want to help him to make it a means of transport which will serve the country, and to place it on such a footing that we as a country and nation will be able to depend on it; and on such a footing that the industries which have to be served by transport will be enabled to compete with industries elsewhere. In analysing the position and taking this matter into review, we must necessarily go into detail, but even where we go into detail, we would like the Minister to feel that we have no ulterior motives and that our only object is to serve the cause with which we are dealing here. Our amendment is aimed at drawing the attention of the Minister and of the Government to the fact that everything is not as it should be as far as transport is concerned. Everything is not in order, as we pointed out to the Minister last year. We as an Opposition dealt with this question at great length last year, and in doing so we discharged our duty to a great extent. But we would be neglecting our duty if we did not again draw the attention of the Minister and the Government to the fact that things are not at all in order yet in this great and powerful organisation. In the first place I just want to reply briefly to members on the other side who tried to rebut our charges. It is noteworthy, and it should also have struck the Minister, that everyone who got up started to coax the Minister but ended up by using the sjambok and giving the Minister a flick here and there. The last speaker especially, who is acting as the Minister’s interpreter, and his colleague who sits immediately behind the Minister, the Midland members, got up and flattered the Minister and the Administration a great deal, undoubtedly with a view to obtaining some benefit or other for their respective areas. The Midlands are faced with competition from the eastern parts of the Cape and also the western parts of the Cape. We know that there is a continual struggle and consequently we cannot attach too much importance to their remarks. I hope the Minister will not get up to make certain promises just before the election in Port Elizabeth takes place. I know it is a difficult election for the Government, because the Government is involved in a death struggle to retain a seat which is regarded as a safe seat. I hope the Minister did not put up these two speakers in order to give him an opportunity of promising something to Port Elizabeth, so as to get the people to vote for the S.A.P.’s. I hope he does not intend to use this big cause as a means of making political capital. I hope the Minister will not allow himself to be persuaded to do that. The other speaker whom he obviously put up is the hon. member for Pretoria, Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). He argued that ’we were running away from the important announcement which the Minister of Transport had made in connection with aviation, and he accused us of not concerning ourselves with this great cause, that we were not acquainted with the position, that we were an out-of-date party. I think since he made those remarks, he has already been convinced that we do take an interest in the matter, a very great interest. We are just as concerned about it as the Minister. We are concerned about the trend of events. The other side is always accusing us of being narrow-minded and of wanting to isolate and separate ourselves from the rest of the world, but actually it is the people on the other side of the House who want to do that. I hope we will not be bound at the conference which is to take place in a manner which will ultimately be very detrimental to our interests. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) brought certain things to the notice of the Minister and put a pertinent question to him. He asked what the Minister was going to do in connection with American competition. The Minister stated that he was prepared to give America an air route. What will he do if Russia asks for a route? Will he give Russia a route?

I have no control over the world.

No, but you want to give America a route. What about Russia if she asks for a route? I know you cannot exercise control over the air space. You need not tell us that. You cannot even exercise control over South Africa. If you could only control South Africa, we would be grateful, but you are not even in a position to do that. You are told by England what to do, and that is the very thing that troubles us. The Minister was good enough to reply that he would grant America an air route. If the Soviet asks for an air route, what is the Minister going to do? He does not reply. I take it he will not grant it. I do not want to discuss the broader issue, but I want to draw attention to the fact that the newspaper “Pravda”, undoubtedly on behalf of the Russian Government itself, stated a few days ago that the conference in Chicago failed because Russia was not represented. He himself reminded the House of the fact that Russia had the greatest air armada in the world. He made no secret of it but proclaimed it to the world. That is a warning, not only a suggestion, to his Allies. Russia, too, wants to occupy a place in the sun as far as aviation is concerned. We want the Minister to protect our interests. We take a great deal of interest in it. The hon. member for Sunnyside prematurely accused us of not being interested. He should have waited a little for the debate. The hon. member then went on to mention a whole series of figures of reserve funds which the Railways have built up. Of course, we could have quoted that too. We also have those figures before us; they are all contained in the schedules. But I think every member of the House is acquainted with them. I want to point out emphatically, however, that our assets have sharply fallen during the war. There is the track, the locomotive power, goods and passenger vehicles, and after the war the Minister will need every penny which he put aside to bring the Railways in a proper state of order again. The Minister knows that. The hon. member excelled himself in his desire to defend the Government, so much so that he wants to make us believe that there is not the slightest reason to worry in regard to the position of the Railway finances. If that had been the position, we would have been grateful. No one would have been more grateful than we, but the Minister will admit that this side of the House issued a warning last year and pointed out the red light, the danger signal; we referred to the indications of a declining Railway revenue; we asked the Minister to protect the interests of that great State Department and not to be so magnanimous and to yield so readily to his own colleagues in the Cabinet, and, more particularly, not to be so magnanimous towards the military authorities. Of course, as soon as we use the word “military” on this side, it is said that we are opposed to the war effort. But it is not a question of the war effort. We drew the Minister’s attention to the unnecessary travelling on the part of people in uniform. We mentioned a number of cases but the Minister did not pay sufficient attention to it. I mentioned the case of a young soldier who had only just joined the army and who had travelled three times in a period of four months from Swakopmund to Sonderwater. Our railways have been abused to a very great extent. The Minister yielded. He granted a rebate of 50 per cent. on the tariffs for military fare, and he knows and his Administration knows that that is an uneconomic tariff to the Railways. The Railways cannot operate without suffering a loss if it grants a rebate of 50 per cent. The Minister knows that, and his officials know it. But the Minister says: “It is being done because it is necessary for the Railways to make a contribution to the war effort of the Government.” And the hon. member for Sunnyside went on to say that no paying traffic was being left behind. I suppose he got no notes from the officials in that respect, because otherwise he would have been informed that a great deal of paying traffic has been left behind and is still being left behind m order to permit of the conveyance of military people. This is paying traffic which cannot be delayed for a week or a month or three months, but traffic which is lost for good; and we are concerned about the war position. We serve the public. We are a State organisation serving the public. But at the same time we are a business undertaking dependent on the goodwill and support of the public, and I want to say—and I ask any hon. member on the other side to refute this statement—that never has the public been so dissatisfied in regard to the Railway Administration as is the case today. The public is dissatisfied in regard to treatment meted out to it.

Untrue.

I am not thinking of a lot of parrots now. I am speaking of people who think for themselves. How is the travelling public being treated? Why is it so difficult to reserve one’s seat? Ridiculous methods are adopted and the travelling public is put to great inconvenience in getting a seat. Because the Railways do not want the people to travel they advertise that fact in the newspapers and they make it as difficult as they possibly can for the people to travel. Many people have told me that after the war they will make it their business to see that they do not have to travel by train.

Why do you travel so extensively?

They say they will see to it that they are not again obliged so travel by train. Many people are extremely dissatisfied with the treatment which is meted out to the public today, and we shall find it very difficult after the war to regain their patronage. I remember the days when we had to exert all our energies to find clients, when we had to beg the people. Senior officers interviewed the people and begged for their patronage. And every effort was made in an attempt to regain the goodwill of the public. We are now putting the public in such a frame of mind that after the war it will be very difficult to get them to support the Railways. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) is the only member who got up without criticising the Government. He is the Chairman of the Select. Committee on Railways and Harbours. He resorted to flattery, but thereafter he drew the Government’s attention to the requirements of Uitenhage, the constituency he represents in this House. He thought he had put the Minister in such a frame of mind by means of his coaxing that he would get something worth while out of him for Uitenhage. I do not hold it against him if he tries to get something for his constituency, but I want to remind the Minister of the fact that nearly every member on his side—not to mention the Labourites and the Dominionites—first resorted to flattery and thereafter to criticism. There was a note of dissatisfaction in their remarks, and some of them sharply criticised the Minister. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) spoke of promotions in the railway service. He held it against us that we raised this matter. I can tell him that we do so very reluctantly. If there is one matter which we do not like to touch upon in this House, it is the subject of promotion, In the first place one is inevitably placed in this position that if one puts one’s case without being specific, the Minister’s reply is that one spoke in genenral terms and that no specific cases were mentioned, so that he is unable to reply. But as soon as one mentions specific cases, it is said that one drags the name of senior officials across the floor of the House. The Minister wants to eat his cake and have it. If one discusses the principle of the matter without mentioning specific cases, it is called vague, but if one brings in the names of officials, one undermines the authority of the officials in relation to the staff. We told the Minister that there was great dissatisfaction amongst the staff in regard to promotion. The Minister denied that. We adduced proof and asked for a commission of investigation to go into the matter, an impartial commission. We do not want to influence it. We do not want to submit false evidence to the commission. It should make an honest report to the Minister; it should reveal the facts to the Minister, and then the Minister can judge for himself. If his mind is at ease in regard to this matter, then I would say there is nothing easier or more accpetable to the Minister than to accede to the request of the Opposition and to appoint a commission, which can then submit a report to the House. If the commission exonerates him, he cannot have a better weapon against the Opposition, provided, of course, it is an impartial commission. But the Minister refuses. The hon. member for Sunnyside rushed to his assistance and stated that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister, had also refused a similar request from the other side. The other side naturally felt that they were entitled to make such a request to the Government and they were incensed by the refusal. I should have imagined that those people who, according to his reply, made the request at that time, would have been willing now to grant such a request. Although they condemned the refusal at that time, they are refusing now. The best way for the Minister to convince himself that everything is in order in regard to the management of the railways, would be to appoint an impartial commission of investigation. We do not lightly make this type of accusation. We have given the matter serious thought. The charges which are being made here against officials are serious and the Minister ought therefore to have the matter investigated and to accept this amendment. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition proved last year, chapter and verse, how the elevator system works. The hon. member for Roodepoort stated that we were asking for an investigation going back to 1939, but that we should ask the Minister to go back to 1924. We stated last year that we accepted the challenge. Go back to 1912 if you like. We accept the challenge. Then he fled. But the implication was that the Minister of Railways in the Nationalist Party Government, the late Mr. Charlie Malan, acted partially.

There was never a Nationalist Party Government.

That he acted partially in the service in connection with promotions. Mr. Charlie Malan is no longer alive, but I want to say this to his credit, and I think everyone in the service who worked under him will admit it, that the railways never had a more fair and more friendly and more obliging and more just Minister than the late Mr. Malan. None other than the organisation to which the hon. member for Roodepoort and I belonged, testified to that. We were both members of the management of the same organisation, and that organisation admitted that Mr. Charlie Malan was the most human Minister which the railways had ever had. Amongst the English-speaking members too, he was the most popular Minister, and in the office of the organisation to which the hon. member for Roodepoort belonged there was a big enlargement of a photograph of Mr. Charlie Malan, a sign of the esteem in which he was held by the English-speaking officials as well. And none other than the General Manager of Railways owes his present position to the promotion which he received from Mr. Charlie Malan. I think he will be prepared to admit it. It can be said to his honour and memory that while the late Mr. Charlie Malan managed the railways in a way which was striking and exemplary he refused to allow himself to be influenced by political or racial considerations which were not sound for the service. Last year the Leader of the Opposition described the elevator system in this House. The Minister was good enough to admit that he did not agree with the policy of degrading posts in order to suit the prospective incumbent. The value of a post should be fixed and once the value of a post has been fixed, someone should be found to occupy that post. He announced that as his policy. He does not agree with the policy of sending the lift down to the man and degrading the post to suit the man. The value of the position should be fixed, and then the man should be found for the post. We accepted the Minister’s word and we did not return to this subject during the debate, but accepted that that was the policy which he was going to adopt. But what do we find? In the General Manager’s Staff Office he did the very thing which he condemned last year, and which we on this side condemned so strongly. In 1942 the post of Chief Staff Superintendent stood at £1,800. In 1943 the elevator was brought down and a certain man was pushed up. The maximum of the post was fixed at £1,600 and a certain man was pushed up to this post of £1,600. A year later the maximum was again fixed at £1,800. In 1942 it was £1,800; in 1943 £1,600, in 1944 again £1,800. The elevator was used. In 1943 there were no less than three superintendents under the chief superintendent, one drawing £1,400, one £1,200 and the third also £1,200.

Is this an automatic elevator?

Fortuitously it is an automatic elevator. The people who dictate the policy to the Minister are the people who make their own promotions. They merely press the button and go up. It is a private elevator. In 1943 there were only two superintendents’ posts, one at £1,400 and one at £1,200. Then there were two smaller posts, both at £1,000 and a baby post at £945. What do we find now? This year they shuffled the cards, and we find that the post of £1,400 is brought down to £1,200; even then it had not been brought low enough for the man to get into the elevator, and they took it down to £1,000. One does not like to use strong language. One should like to uphold the dignity of this House, but one really cannot use strong enough language to condemn this procedure, especially when it takes place in the General Manager’s Staff Office. That office, above all, ought to set an example to the whole service, but it is there that these things take place, and it is that which causes grievances on the part of the staff. It seems to me that in that office there is nothing but a rush for posts and improvement of position. What is more, two Afrikaans-speaking superintendents were both transferred from the General Manager’s office this year. I hope that was not as a result of the attack made by the Opposition last year; but it is noteworthy that both these senior superintendents at £1,400 and £1,200 respectively, were transferred out of the General Manager’s office. One of them was promoted. The other was transferred without promotion, on very short notice. A man who occupies such a high position in the staff office of the General Manager that he earned £1,200, is transferred out of the office at very short notice. Merely transferred. We know that when anything of this kind happens in the railway service, it is equivalent to kicking the man out. He is kicked out. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to lay the documents in connection with this case on the Table, namely, the documents relating to the kicking out of this official from the staff office of the General Manager? We should like to peruse it. I hope the Minister will reply that the transfer of these officials from the General Manager’s office has nothing to do with a move in that office to teach “Die Transvaler” a lesson, because “Die Transvaler” made an attack in a leading article on the Minister and the Railway Administration because they employed coloured labourers intead of Europeans and ignored the policy in connection with non-Europeans. I hope the transfer of these officials is not the result of this episode in the office of the General Manager, that it did not have its origin in a desire to teach “Die Transvaler” a lesson. I shall be very glad if he will tell us that. But in any event we are perturbed that these two Afrikaner superintendents were transferred out of the General Manager’s staff office almost simultaneously. I want to ask the hon. Minister: Was the superintendent who was promoted, promoted on the recommendation of the General Manager; if not, who were the nominees of the General Manager for that post? Was he the person nominated by the General Manager for promotion to that post? Will the Minister also tell us how often that official has been overlooked in the past for similar promotions? Until such time as we made attacks in this House on the elevator system, he was systematically overlooked for similar promotions, but after we had made these attacks, he was suddenly found capable enough to be promoted to a post and to a sphere of employment for which he was overlooked time and again. The Minister made a very important statement here—it is important because it affects the happiness and welfare and the bread of thousands and tens of thousands of people—he said it was the policy of the Administration to promote the most efficient man and not necessarily the man who has the longest service. Such a policy must necessarily rest on the judgment of whom? It must be based on the opinion of someone. After all, the General Manager does not know every man in his service. Unfortunately he knows too few people in his service. He has to be guided by the recommendation of his subordinates; he has to go on the recommendation of the man who in most cases is just above the person who is due for promotion. I want to mention a specific case now. I can quote many cases to the Minister, but I do not want to take up the time of the House unduly. I want to mention this one case. It is the case of a man who was a stationmaster in October, 1940. He was appointed as assistant harbour superintendent. In February, 1943, his post was elevated and nominations were invited. He was the man who was nominated by the harbour engineer. He was the man who was nominated by the superintendent; he was the man who was nominated by the system manager; he was the man who was appointed by the Service Commission. All the channels were followed; everyone was satisfied. That was in February, 1943. He was appointed on probation for three months. Those three months elapsed and he was not confirmed in his position. Six months elapsed and still he was not confirmed. But on a certain day a telegram arrived from the head office all of a sudden, informing him to transfer from that post immediately in an acting capacity to another place. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard the annual hymn of hate of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). There was much cry in the land of little wool. Of course, he is sour with the railways, but not half as sour as they were with him when he worked for them. He turns round now and says that the railwaymen are discontented and the country is discontented with the running of the railways. I would like to congratulate the Minister and the General Manager and heads of the Railway Department for the remarkable work they did in this war and for the contented service they gave to South Africa, and my hon. friends on the other side know that is true. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) would never get up to make a remark like that. They leave it to a back-bencher who has not very much experience of things and who is sour. When a man gets the sack from anywhere he is always sour.

On a point of explanation, I just want to say that I did not get the sack from the railway service. The Railway Administration at one time had the audacity to dismiss me from the service, but the same Railway Administration, after I had won my case against them, had to re-instate me fully, and the hon. member knows it.

The hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) was quick to get out of the way just as the sack was coming along.

On a further point of personal explanation, the hon. member says that I just got out of the railway service in time to avoid dismissal. I just want to tell you that none other than the hon. Minister himself stated last year that if I had not left the service, I would have been one of the people whom he would have promoted.

On a point of order; what the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) has just said in respect of the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) is practically equivalent to accusing him of a crime, because the Railway Administration cannot dismiss an official unless he makes himself guilty of a crime, and I want to ask you to protect members in the House against this type of insult which we continually get from the hon. member for Hospital. This is not the first time.

I hope the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) will not repeat the charge he has made against the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The hon. member for Vredefort has given his qxplanation, and the hon. member is in duty bound to accept that explanation.

You can believe me, Sir, I am not going to repeat it. I have not got time. But the hon. member, who seems as if he cannot take it, is like all the Nationalists. They squeal and squeal and squeal as soon as they hear the truth.

But you did not tell the truth

They did not squeal. They are only getting out of the way of dirt.

On a point of order, is any hon. member of this House entitled to tell another member that he is a “scoundrel”?

Open your ears. No one spoke of a “scoundrel”.

You cannot understand English.

Let that hon. member not talk so much sauerkraut. They are always attacking the Government and the Minister but the moment anyone gets up and says a humble word about them they squeal like stuck pigs. Let us leave it at that. The hon. member says it is very nasty to travel on the railways today. He says it is an awful thing to travel. There is no member of this House who travels more than that hon. member. He has just travelled miles and miles to German-West on his free pass. If he thinks it is such a bad thing to travel about why does he not give up his free pass and remain in Parys. He travels about the country and his constituents can never find him. They are always looking all over for him, and I can assure him that the people of Vredefort are looking for him but he is always travelling about. He seems to think it is another trek. But I want to talk to the hon. Minister and to congratulate him and to ask him who is going to be his next General Manager and whether it is possible to keep the General Manager we have now for some time longer, because the country wants him.

Hear, hear.

I hope the Minister hears all these “hear, hear’s”. The next thing I want to ask the hon. Minister is this: When will he build the new line from Johannesburg to Pretoria? We are the people who pay. I do not want him to tell me that it will take nine months to do because it will be longer, but I want him to do it at once. If he would do it, he would ease the Traffic Department in Johannesburg enormously and help those 60,000 natives at Alexandrafontein who cannot travel. I would like to ask the Minister another thing: When will he give the people of South Africa decent liquor on the railways? At present he is selling brandy which cannot be more than nine months or a year old. Now is the time for the railways to lay in a large stock of South African wines and brandies.

We are doing it now.

I am glad to hear it but I hope it will be a large stock so that it will last five or ten years, because the people who come to this country first drink South African wines and brandies on the railways, and poor liquor gives us a bad name. It is up to the Minister to see to it that they get proper liquor. Is the Minister prepared to see to it that we will have more than two railway hotels? The country is crying out for more railway hotels. The Minister must not be afraid. He must take his courage in his hands. He has a first-class catering department which does excellent work and he must build big hotels in South Africa, in Durban, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Johannesburg, and perhaps those even on the South Coast of Natal and at Muizenberg. The hotels of South Africa today are not tourist hotels, and unless the Government builds tourist hotels in South Africa and runs them there will be no real tourist hotels. Hotels are being sold today at prices higher than they are worth, with old buildings, and the public has to pay for that. The time has come for the Minister, who has much courage, and whom we love in Johannesburg, to do that. But I hope he will not talk about “my railways” so much. We would like to think that the railways are still ours. But we ask him to build these hotels. And when is the Minister going to give us more planes? What is the good of giving us one plane a day from Cape Town to Johannesburg carrying ten or twelve people? Why does he not give us six or seven planes? It can be done. Here are all us members of Parliament. We live far away and cannot get home for the week-end because there is only one plane. The railway people have enough brain to run more than one plane a day. We have the best pilots in the whole world. We ask for this in this House and the country wants it. The Minister must not be like the Minister of Finance who gave us a worn-out Budget this morning. He must give us a good thing and the public will stand behind him. When is the Minister going to carry out his promise to the Free State to centralise the workshops in Bloemfontein? That promise was given to me 20 years ago, when I was the member for Bloemfontein, by the Government of the day, by Charlie Malan and Klasie Havenga. They promised me and the hon. Minister of Justice the workshops and we gave the railways hundreds of morgen of land for nothing, but nothing has been done. Bloemfontein has not been well treated. All the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) can do for the town is to sing out his yearly hymn of hate, and the people of Bloemfontein are sick of him. When will the Minister double the railway line from Bloemfontein to Johannesburg through the Free State? The Free State is the Cinderella of South Africa today as regards railways and it is time that the Government should do something for them. I admit that the Free State is not well represented in the House today. The Free State members of Parliament do not ask for anything. They just talk racialism. I am an old Free Stater and I know them, but the families of those people all come from Cape districts. But the Free State is treated like Cinderella and I ask the Minister to double that Orange Free State line. And when will the Minister do something about the national roads? Why will not the Government use Italians? Our sons and nephews go up to war and catch Italians to work for those Nationalist gentlemen opposite. They are neutral and do not want to fight, but they grab all the Italians they can get. They all have Italians on the farms Where these Italians should have been used to build roads. I want to know whether the Italians are going to be sent home or whether they will live with those Nationalist people after the war. I want to end on one note, about tourists. What has the Minister done about the Tourist Bill we passed in this House? Has that also been lost? After the war quite a number of tourists are coming to this country. We have an enormous tourist market in America, a bigger market than we ever had before and strange as it may be many of the Americans have never heard about South Africa. All they know about us is that there is a wonderful man called Smuts and a wonderful man called Malan, but the only Malan they know is the flying Malan. I want the Minister to tell me what has happened about that Bill which we passed in this House. Just to close off a delightful little speech I would like to say this: When is the Minister going to stop making his rates higher and higher and helping to close down our gold mines on the Rand? Does not the Minister recognise that without the gold mines on the Rand he will not be able to pay for the grease on the axles on our railways, and that we keep the ball rolling? It is not the farmer who keeps the railways going but the gold mines. Eliminate the gold mines tomorrow and you will walk on your flat feet. The mines subsidise the railways as they subsidise everything else. The Minister must not forget that. When I sat amongst the Olympian heights, amongst the Press gods, for many years, I heard the present Minister of Railways say that there must be something about the railways in South Africa because they will penalise the gold mines and keep on putting up rates. That was what Mr. Sturrock, the hon. member for Tuffontein, said. But since he has become Minister of Railways he has done what he preached should not be done. If he keeps on changing his opinions like that he will find himself on the Opposition side of the House before long.

I can also praise a man like that, by now saying he is such a fine fellow and then in so many words saying that he is practically the most rotten Minister this country has ever seen. But I do not intend doing that.

You Will tell him how bad he is right from the beginning.

No, I do not quite know what to do, I am in the unfortunate position that I want to criticise the Minister, but I am also at a loss. When one needs something one has to flatter the other man. I am at a loss because I have many things to ask of the Minister. But I also have a duty to the public to point out to the Minister where he is wrong. My difficulty is this: Shall I first flatter the Minister and then criticise; shall I first talk nicely and then make him angry, or shall I just make him angry in the beginning and talk nicely later? Three speeches have been made in this House, which, according to my opinion, practically interpret the point of view of the country. The one was that of the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), the other two were those of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and that of the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. MilesCadman). There is no doubt but that the question of aviation and shipping will be one of the most important and serious questions to be decided in this country, and for that reason I am so much in earnest about the important points I raised here and the questions I put to the Minister, and which I am inclined to put to the Minister once more in this House. I know it is difficult for him to reply to these important questions of policy which are raised in this House. Generally it is very easy for him to reply to the small matters that are touched on. But these are matters in connection with which the country is simply faced with the question: What will be the railway policy after the war? As regards the question of shipping as regards South Africa I hope that the Minister will not evade that question, but that he will tell the House what South Africa’s policy will be in connection with our own shipping as far as it is practically possible as regards our own South African coasts, and what will be the policy in connection with rebuilding and repairing ships in South Africa? Will we revert to the old position where we will be dependent on foreign shipping in all respects? I hope that the Minister will not evade that question. I have the right to insist on a reply because we only too often find that members ask questions in this House on matters of policy and that the Government simply ignores them. The Minister may say that if he does so he is only acting in accordance with ministerial tradition. He will then be adopting the attitude that we may just talk and talk but the Government takes no notice of our questions. In this country we find that the Cabinet makes decisions and that members are left to read in the newspaper what has been decided, unlike England where the House of Commons decides those important matters. I hope that the Minister will this afternoon make a declaration of policy in connection with this matter when he replies to the debate. The second thing I have to stress is to what measure will South Africa allow the great and powerful nations to come here and tell South Africa: “You may take this and you may take that, but we will take from you what we want”. As regards aviation there is only one policy we must follow and that is a policy of fifty-fifty reciprocity with any other nation. If for example America wants to bind herself to South Africa as regards aviation, it must to on a fifty-fifty basis. If we enter into an agreement with Britain it must be on a basis of fifty-fifty; it must be on a footing of reciprocity. If they take one they must return one. South Africa must no longer be an El Dorado for other countries. In that respect I want to insist that the House should ask to have a statement from the Minister as to what the basis is on which he is going to hold the conference. What does he hold out in prospect to the nation? Must Parliament for ever read in the newspapers what the policy of the Government is?

Why cannot this Government do what the British Government does? The British Ministers lay matters before members and ask them for their opinions But that is not the policy of this Government. If one wants to know what the policy of this Government is one has to read it in the newspapers now and again. But not on a single occasion is an important statement with regard to agreements entered into with foreign countries or with regard to foreign policy submitted to Parliament and discussed in the House.

But you only talk.

The hon. member really must not be like a parrot. Everything comes to an end. Seeing that hon. members are devoting so much attention to me I just want to say this. We look forward to the repercussions which will come from that side of the House in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Dr. Bremer). The Opposition extended the hand of friendship. That is one of the questions to which the hon. Minister will perhaps be able to reply. Has progress been made in connection with that matter? Has the Government decided to accept the hand of friendship which this side extended the other day? Have they decided to co-operate with the Opposition?

The hon. member must not refer to speeches in previous debates.

I submit to your ruling. But I just want to know whether the Minister can make a statement as to whether there has been some progress in that regard. We are very much interested in the question of co-operation and the country is also very much interested. I am really very deeply interested in it. I also want to say that I hope the Minister will investigate the question raised here by the hon. member for Durban (Berea). I shall be glad if he would tell the country that it is in the interests of the war to convey two dogs to Johannesburg in one truck. All those things which daily happen under the Minister’s Government are always ascribed to war conditions, but I now hope that the Minister will take the trouble to tell the hon. member for Durban (Berea) whether it is in the interests of the war, because the public outside and the House do not understand it. All those things are raised in the House from time to time and then we are told: “Do not complain; there is a war on”. But we also want to ask the Minister not to trade in and speculate with the loyalty of his supporters. That is what happens here and I hope that he will take the trouble to explain to the House how it is in the interests of the war effort to make a train available for the transportation of dogs—two dogs per truck—from Durban to Johannesburg. The Minister must not evade these things by telling us that he has no time to reply to them. The Minister must reply to it because he likes being congratulated and supported in this House, and under the circumstances he cannot expect that of us if he does not explain these things. I must tell the Minister that it is beyond me, beyond my grasp and that of South Africa, how those so-called efficient managers and the men who are so loyal to the Minister can consider that it is in the interests of the war effort that two dogs per truck should be transported to Johannesburg. Those little matters must be clarified. The Minister must forgive me for being so stupid that I cannot understand that it is in the interests of the war effort. I do not want to associate myself with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) who spoke here about better liquor for the people on the trains. I want to speak here, as was done by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) for the people who are forced to pay higher prices for their meals on the train while they are getting less than a third of the value they received before. The Minister must explain those things. Prices are rising and the food is less, and the Minister must explain how it is in the interests of the war effort that sometimes the water in the train is cut off while we pass the Orange River, although previously these things never happened. I also want to know from the Minister how it is in the interests of the war effort that some of his people were arrested one day and put into gaol but released a few days later because they were innocent. How is it in the interests of the war effort that the leaders of thousands of railwaymen were taken and put into prison and a few days later were simply released with the usual “I am sorry”. That question was asked of the Minister last year by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). No reply was forthcoming. We again ask the question now, why those leaders of the trade union were put into prison, had to scrub floors there, and after a few days were again released; we want to know how that can be in the interests of the war effort. The public outside cannot see how the Minister can encourage his war effort by taking the mouthpiece of the workers and throwing them into prison.

Order, order! May I point out to the hon. member that he has already used that argument four times.

I think you are right, Mr. Speaker, but we are forced to repeat our questions, because if we ask a question of the Minister only once he does not reply to it.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that the rule clearly states that a member must not repeat arguments.

You are quite right Mr. Speaker, but I just wish you also had the power to tell a Minister to reply to our questions, in which case it will not be necessary for us to repeat questions. You are quite right, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate it. We must now complain in this House about little matters we never before experienced on the railways. Passengers are obliged to use the trains nowadays, but how is their baggage treated? With my own eyes I saw that a brand new trunk was thrown five or six yards away, where it fell into bits and pieces. I suppose these things are also in support of the war effort and we should not complain about them. At Johannesburg I stood and watched the way in which people’s belongings are handled. It is simply shocking. In Bloemfontein I saw how the cream containers of the farmers were flung around so that within half an hour three cans were broken and the cream lay there to a depth of nine inches. The Minister and his manager must explain—those managers who in one year receive an increase in salary of £400 which is again reduced by £100—those people whom the hon. member for Hospital congratulated so, must explain how it is in the interest of the war effort that people’s belongings are damaged in this manner. The Minister must forgive me for being so stupid, but I cannot understand how such things are in the interests of the war effort. It was rightly said in this House that the reputation of the railways was not improved in this manner. I want to add to that that it is not right on the part of the Minister, if he thinks that he will not occupy that post for long and wants to vacate it in favour of someone else, now to make the railways so unpopular. The public are now obliged to use the railways, but a time will arrive when there will be other facilities for travelling, and that will cause difficulties for the railways in future. The Minister may now say that he is making a lot of money on the railways, but the public is simply being forced to use the railways. I trust that the Minister has not been too much annoyed about these things I have brought to his attention, because I now want to speak about a few more pleasant matters and if the Minister will meet me in connection with them, I can at least tell the people this, that the railways also do the good things. Various members pleaded here for the building of new railway lines. But here the Minister will support me when I say that if there is one deserving line which must be considered, whether it is done now or later when lines can again be built, it is that line which was indicated by the largest deputation the Minister has probably ever received, namely the line from Pretoria through Krugersdorp and Randfontein to Parys in the Free State. I am sure the Minister remembers that deputation. He was not in a good mood but I hope that he will get into a good mood, and then his Railway Board will tell him that that line will without doubt be one of the most paying railway lines. It will be a main line from Pretoria through Krugersdorp which will eventually join up in the Free State. It will come into contact with the North-Western Free State. The line is essential. We know that at the moment there is a bottleneck of traffic at Johannesburg and Germiston. The hon. member for Hospital pleaded that another line should be built parallel to that route. The right thing to do to relieve the traffic in that bottleneck will be to build a straight line, as I have suggested here, and then the traffic through that bottleneck will be relieved and Pretoria will be brought nearer to the North-Western Free State and eventually to Kimberley and Cape Town. In spite of the fact that the Minister was annoyed, I am asking him to devote the necessary attention to the building of this line, when one day he is again in a position to build railroads. He must suggest this line. Then I want to ask the Minister why he is becoming so unfriendly towards my constituency which is being neglected so much. The City Council has been asking for years that a few porters should be appointed on the station to help the members of the public who get on to trains there, not only from Krugersdorp but from a large area of the Western Transvaal. Krugersdorp is not only the largest station on the West Rand, but a large area of the Western Transvaal make use of that station. The members for Lichtenburg and such places all board the train there. There are no porters and ladies with children must struggle and stagger with their luggage in order to board the train. There were two porters, but after a fortnight they were removed again. I cannot understand why. It is the big station of the West Rand and it is also the large and important station for the Western Transvaal. When the Minister is in a good mood again he must also think of Krugersdorp and improve that position. Then I want to come to the poor Europeans who do loading work on the railways. They do not receive the wage the Minister mentioned here, namely 10s. a day. They are still working for 6s. and 7s. etc. I want to ask the Minister to consider the question of the uniforms of those people and to give them at least four suits per annum. Those people do hard work and their clothes wear out probably within a month. Their clothes wear out and then they have to manage out of their own wages. While the railways are flourishing and while everybody is receiving some or other concession, I want to ask the Minister to give at least four uniforms to those people who do the loading work. Their uniforms wear out so quickly that they cannot manage with what they receive now. They do good work which is certainly some of the hardest work done on the railways. I thus hope that the Minister will take the position into consideration. Then there is just one more thing. At Krugersdorp station the staff is hopelessly too small. If the Minister compares the staff with that of other stations of the same grade he will notice that Krugersdorp with its larger goods and passenger traffic has been neglected in so far as the staff is concerned. I want to ask the Minister to consider these matters and to go into them so that improvement can be brought about.

I should like to tell the section of the general public who accord their support to the Labour Party, that the hon. member who has just spoken and his colleagues, cannot divest themselves of their responsibility as far as concerns the misdeeds of the Government by simply standing up here now and again and offering some slight criticism of that Minister. The Government now in power is just as much their Government as it is the Government of the United Party. In the eyes of the electorate they carry the same responsibility for all the injustices that are being perpetrated by the Ministers opposite, and I say that it is high time that the voters outside who are supporting them realise this. I think that they do realise it. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) should not think that he can rehabilitate himself in Krugersdorp by delivering himself of a tirade here about the Minister of Transport. I want to mention a matter in connection with the railway police. As it has been related to me, the position of affairs is that in the railway police we have the ordinary constables in uniform and then the investigation constables. Then we have sergeants, etc. I believe that the policy was laid down in 1936 that as far as concerned the future, the railway police would only be considered for promotion if they passed certain examinations. So uniformed police in many cases passed the first examination that was necessary for promotion to what was designated sergeant, second grade. That is a lance-sergeant. From that they could go to sergeant, which was accompanied by a second examination. I put the matter to the Minister as it has been presented to me, and the Minister can tell me whether the information is wrong. Many constables in uniform passed examinations, but in 1944 amongst other things this happened. A list of seniority was drawn up affecting promotion. This list contains a whole series of names, maily of investigation constables who were promoted from that rank to the rank of sergeant, class II. The complaints of the sergeants in uniform is that they in order to fill that rank must pass at least two examinations, the first in order to be promoted from ordinary constable to lance-sergeant, and after that a second examination to be promoted to sergeant in uniform. But notwithstanding this, accord ing to that list a considerable number of investigation constables who did not pass the examination were promoted to sergeant, class II, which is the equivalent to sergeants in uniform. In many cases the investigation constables have thereby not only been placed on an equal rank with the sergeants in uniform, but it really appears under this seniority list that some of them have obtained seniority over uniformed constables. I have also been told that that as far as concerns this list, with the exception of two names not a single one of these persons has passed an examination, while as I have already stated, the uniformed sergeants have to pass two examinations to qualify for that rank. I have also been informed that many of the plain clothes constables, while they were investigation constables and before they were designated as second class sergeants, had to work, at many of the places where they were employed, under the supervision of uniformed constables, whereby the Administration admitted that the uniformed constables were senior to the investigation constables. Now by this transposition, as it has been called, the investigation constables are all indicated as second class sergeants, whereby in the judgment of the uniformed sergeants, they have been done a great injustice because a considerable number of people whom they have always regarded as being under them, have been placed on an equal footing to them, and in many cases have been given seniority over them. And as I have said, with the exception of two cases, these persons have not passed an examination, although the plain clothes constables had the same opportunities to sit for these examinations. In many cases they did not avail themselves of the opportunity, and those who did avail themselves, in the majority of cases failed. Notwithstanding this, they have by this transposition in rank been placed on an equal footing with the sergeants in uniform. Now the uniformed sergeants feel that simply by a stroke of the pen, without any examination, these people have been made equal to them in rank, and they say that in view of that further promotion must be made open to them without examination. That is the way in which the matter has been put to them, and I hope that the Minister will give full information to the House on this matter. There is a considerable number of these sergeants who feel that an injustice has been done to them as the result of this action of the Administration. Now I come to another matter, namely, the road transport buses. In various parts such as Waterberg, Potgietersrust, Pietersburg, Rustenburg we continually hear these complaints which, in my opinion, are of the utmost importance and Well-founded. The transport of passengers, especially of non-European passengers, has increased tremendously. As a result of the lack of room it has led to the result that European and non-European are simply packed like sardines all mixed up in the motor buses. I do not know whether the Minister and his high-placed officials have ever been afforded the opportunity to come into contact with natives in one of these buses in the neighbourhood of the native location. If he has had that opportunity he will know in what an unhygienic condition these people are, and what the smell is like. If he has had that experience then he and his high-placed officials can imagine how bitterly unpleasant it must be for these white people, especially for women, when they have to travel 100 miles in such a bus and be cooped up the whole day with a bunch of natives. That is a state of affairs that cries to heaven to be put right. Nor is that all. These buses are used by natives, by native women, their children and babies who are all packed in. Eatables are also conveyed in these buses, and because the buses are so full it simply means that these natives and the children sit on the bags of mealies, mealie meal and wheat. We know what state these native children are in. I have myself seen what has happened there, and the Minister can imagine in what an unhygienic condition those native children are who are sitting on the foodstuffs. They travel 100 miles in such a bus, and spend the whole day in it. This is nothing less than a scandalous state of affairs. Seeing that this position of affairs has already been brought to the notice of the Minister I cannot understand the Administration allowing this state of affairs to continue. I can give the Minister the assurance that whatever information he may have been given, or that the General Manager may have been given, that is the condition of affairs that is still existing. I have seen it with my own eyes, and not only in one place. It is general in those parts where the people, as a result of the shortage of means of transport, have to make use of the Government’s motor buses.

Of course, you think that those people should not use the buses.

The hon. member does not apparently understand Afrikaans.

No, I understand quite well. You do not want these people to be allowed to use the buses.

I raise no objection to non-Europeans travelling on the Government buses.

You want them to have to walk on the road.

I must ask the hon. member to be so courteous as to be quiet. What I am objecting to is to these natives with their children sitting on the food of the Europeans. If that hon. member is prepared to eat the food on which native children have been sitting the whole day long, he can do it. We don’t want to do it. Then there is another matter. It applies to the goods clerks and the European personnel at many of the stations. At many places complaints were lodged with the Administration that thefts have been occurring on the stations. The Administration then went and placed native police to keep watch at the goods sheds. I have no objection to that, if the native police are employed in the night to guard the goods trains and keep watch. We know that the goods trains are not all properly secure, and I have no objection to the native police watching them during the night, because offences are in most cases committed by non-Europeans. On that account I have no objection to this. But does the Minister know what happens? At many stations it has happened that without the goods clerks having been informed that any step of this sort would be taken, native constables have walked one fine day into the goods sheds and acted as if they were boss. Only Europeans are working in the goods sheds. There are no natives in the goods sheds, and on one fine day three native constables stepped into one of them. They looked around and played the boss. Only white men are working inside. We have to remember this. There are no nonEuropeans. On many of the stations there is not a single non-European working in the goods sheds, but here native constables come along to keep watch in the goods sheds. Under whose orders are they? That is the state of affairs prevailing there. Those European personnel can come to no other conclusion, and I also, than that the native constables have been appointed to keep observation on them. In other words, the suspicion begins to take shape that they have been stealing the goods or want to steal them, and that the native constables have to guard against that. I hope that the Minister will give attention to that. If native constables have to come there they should be placed under the control and orders of the Europeans in the goods sheds, and the position must not be that the European personnel appear in the eyes of the world to have been placed under native constables. I shall perhaps not be here when the Minister replies to the debate, but I want to ask him to give attention to this matter, and also as regards, the railway police, to say clearly what the position is. I want to express the hope that the Minister, when he replies to this debate, will announce that in regard to the motor bus services he will now give instructions that once and for all an end must be put to the shameful position in regard to motor bus transport under which natives and coloured people travel together with Europeans, and the natives sit on the European food parcels.

I want to urge the Minister to declare the Piet Retief-Ermelo railway a main line. The branch line tariffs that are being paid by the farmers in the neighbourhood of Piet Retief are too high. The wattle and timber farmers are finding things impossible. With the increase of 10 per cent. on freight the people have to pay up to 7s. 6d. more per ton on timber. The result is when they sell their wood in Johannesburg they get no more for it than £1 4s. per ton, which means the going under of the farmers. That is an enterprising district. Thousands of morgen of trees have been planted, and more and more are being planted. It is an enterprising district, but it is held back by the high tariffs. Not only that. I received a telegram the other day wherein I was informed that the Minister of Labour is now applying the Wage Act to the wattle farmers. If this happens the people will not be able to make a living. Accordingly, I want to press for the line to be declared a main line, so that the main line tariffs can be enforced. It is not only timber that is transported over this railway, but also thousands of tons of coal. I cannot understand why the Piet Retief line should continue to fall under the branch line tariff. If enquiry is made regarding the moneys that have been collected from the public during past years, and what has been paid to the Railways, it will be found that it is absolutely reasonable for the line to be declared a main line. Not only that, but I want to further urge on the Minister to maintain supervision over the railway people on the line, especially the checkers. They are not provided with overcoats. In the cold they have to work from morning till evening; they are the people who do the hardest work on the railways, but they have to pay for their overcoats themselves. I do not see why these people should have to pay for their overcoats. Provision should be made for them to be protected against cold and rain. I would further press on the Minister to build a railway from Piet Retief to Gollel. This would be a very serviceable railway, and would assist a large number of farmers there. There are big timber plantations, and today timber has to be transported by motor lorries to Piet Retief, nearly 30 miles. The expense is so great that they cannot market the timber under present circumstances. But also bearing in mind the Pongo settlement (which is going to be one of the biggest producing districts) it is necessary for the Railway Administration to build a railway line. Today much sugar cane is being grown, and it all has to be transported by bus. Not only that, but I believe that it is going to be one of the most important potato producing districts, and it is impossible to transport everything by bus. It is a distance of 80 miles, and you cannot market the products in a proper way. They have to be overloaded and they are damaged, and have become no longer fit for human consumption by the time they reach the market. I should further like to direct the Minister’s attention to the housing of railwaymen. It has been brought to my notice that the Minister has under consideration the extension of the goods sheds at Piet Retief in order to make them more efficient. If this is so I do not want to go further into the matter but if the Minister has not yet arrived at a decision, I want to direct attention to the fact that the goods shed at Piet Retief is a galvanised iron building, and that it is terrible for people to work in it. The products must be received there are delivered from there, and the position should receive attention as quickly as possible. As far as the housing of the railway workers at Volksrust is concerned, I have to say that the conditions are as critical as in any part of the country. Galvanised iron buildings have been erected for railway workers, and ceiling planks have been used in their construction. When it is cold the people freeze there, while when it is warm it is worse than an oven. The people have to live in these places with their wives and families from January to January. They can get no other accommodation, and it is a big shame that this sort of accommodation is being provided to European railwaymen. I may tell you this, that the native in the Volksrust location is housed in a better way than the railwaymen. I trust the Minister will also give his attention to this, and will see to it that this state of affairs is not allowed to continue. I met the System Manager of the railways there and the position is still receiving his attention. He has himself seen the position, and has said that it is a sad condition of affairs, and that it will receive his immediate attention, and that he will bring it to the notice of the Minister. But, he added “There is a war on”. And so long as the war continues the building programme of the Government cannot be carried into effect, and these people have to live in these hovels until the war is over. The natives are receiving better housing than the Europeans. Then there is a further grievance in connection with remuneration. The natives who enter the railway service receive a commencing salary of about £6 a month, and there are still hundreds of European railwaymen who have to work on the old scale. Cannot an alteration be made so that the European railway workers are not paid the commencing salary that the natives get today? The injustice cannot be continued any longer. I am pressing this, that the people should receive proper remuneration. You get married people who are working at 9s. 6d. per day plus allowances, and on that basis they cannot provide properly for their families. Accordingly, I urge the Minister to pay these people a proper wage, so that they and their families can live decently.

When I spoke last time I pleaded with the Minister on behalf of certain less privileged railway workers and I also pleaded for certain working facilities for various groups of workers. Here I refer particularly to the “Karrier Cobs”. I want to thank the Minister for what he has done in this connection. He made certain promises and he has carried them out. In the name of those workers I want to thank the Minister, but I also referred to another group of railway workers in connection with whom the Minister also made a promise. I have not heard again from the Minister about that, nor has the promise been carried out. I refer to the signalmen on the Witwatersrand. I asked the Minister whether it is the case that Grade 1 signallers on the Rand relieved the special grade. The Minister replied in the negative. I have made further enquiries, and I want to give the names to the Minister. They are Van Gass, Bodenstein, Hugo, Dreyer and Du Plessis. I mention these names because these men have relieved at the special signal boxes at Braamfontein Central, Braamfontein East, Johannesburg, Langlaagte and Germiston West. The reason why I want to say something about that is that the Grade 1 signalman receives 17s. 6d. a day, while the special grade gets about 22s. My main point is that the special grade signalman who has worked his whole life in that signal box under difficult conditions is up against a blank wall, and I have urged on the Minister that when the Grade 1 men relieve the special grade men and are capable of relieving them, the Minister should give them the opportunity to move into the special grade. The opportunity for promotion should be granted. In his reply the Minister promised that he would do this, that he would go into it. The special Grade I signalman really do the work of yard inspectors. If this is the case why does not the Minister give a chance to the men who have worked throughout their lives under the most difficult circumstances, to be promoted as yard inspectors, and let the Grade 1 men advance to special signalmen while they are doing the work. I want to ask the Minister again emphatically that as far as regards this he should divulge what he has in mind. We have seen that all the stations have risen in grade as a result of the increase of work during the war, but the signal boxes have remained where they were. That is an injustice towards this class of worker. I want to ask the Minister again to take this matter into serious consideration, to move up the Grade 1 signallers to the special grade, and to give the special grade an opportunity after all these years of service to be promoted as yard inspectors. I want to identify myself with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in what he said with reference to the railway police. I want to mention to the Minister that the routine order that was issued in connection with the matter makes provision that the detective constables can be promoted to second class sergeants, and then their salary rises to £35 10s. a month, but there are also cases where such second class sergeants are promoted to first class sergeants, namely, some of those who have done service in the army. Some of them have been promoted to first class sergeants. I think the Minister knows this. That creates bitterness and friction between the uniformed constable and the detective constable. The routine order makes provision that they can be promoted from the 1st May, 1944, but the Minister has received complaints from certain uniformed constables regarding the matter, and according to my information the Minister, or his Department, replied that the promotion will not date from the 1st May, 1944, but from the date that the person was appointed to the rank of investigation constable. Some of these people were appointed in 1937, and in 1938 they sat for the examination and failed, and now you have the peculiar position that the seniority of these people dates not from 1938 but from 1937. I think that is a grievous injustice that has been done. An appeal has been made by the uniformed police against this treatment—so I am informed—but the answer to that was that the Administration’s policy comes from the Government and these persons had no right to appeal against it. If that is so, I think it is nothing less than a scandal, and I hope that the Minister will rectify the matter. He should not permit friction to exist between two sections of his officials, those that have actually passed the examination and the others who have failed. The Minister will also not take it amiss when I say that the investigation police who are now gaining promotion, are the people who have been the gestapo of the Minister of Railways. Is this their reward? Here I want to associate my self with the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). There has been an injustice in this respect. We know that the investigation constables were just those people who tried to find out something which could land a uniformed constable in the railway service in difficulties, and now we want to know from the Minister whether that is the reward that these people are obtaining, the big promotion to first class sergeant, with a salary of £39 10s. apart from allowances. I would like to express the hope that this matter will enjoy the serious attention of the Minister, otherwise harm and injustice will be done. The Minister must repair the wrong and restore harmony between the two groups, namely the investigating officers and the uniformed constables. There is another matter to which I would refer the Minister, and that is the condition of the railway houses at Newtown, the so-called double-deckers. The Minister will agree that it is a disgrace to the Railway Administration to continue with this class of house at Newtown. My information is, and I believe it is correct, that the General Manager of Railways has set himself against the breaking down of these houses, that is to say the Minister’s Minister. Efforts have been directed towards the demolition of these double-decker houses that are standing there, and so far as I can ascertain some were demolished, but at a certain stage the work was stopped. The houses are of such a description that no decent white person can live in them. The health of the people, and especially of the children that live in them, is being undermined. The children have no place for recreation and their health is being undermined. You cannot describe them as in any other way than by the word “slums”. If the Minister would himself go and look at the houses he would agree that it is a discredit to the Railway Administration to keep this class of house, especially as it is in the vicinity of the city. Accordingly, I hope that the Minister will tackle this matter and see to it that these miserable houses are demolished, and that the men who are in his service are properly housed. But I want to go a little further in connection with the housing. The Minister intends to build departmental railway houses in my constituency. I think the Minister of the Interior almost said that the day would arrive when we shall have to give our servants rooms in our dwellings. The Minister of Railways is already bringing that evil into effect. I learnt about some of the houses on the Witwatersrand and went to see about them. The houses have not yet been built but the plans have been completed. I went to the engineers on the railways and demanded to see the plans a few days before I came down here. Eventually after they had ’phoned up the system manager and after many delays I got the right to view the plans, because it is in my constituency that they will be built. In some of the houses the servant’s room will be part of the residence. I want to ask the Minister not to go on with that. Three rooms are being built adjoining one another, and the last room is intended for the servant’s room, and although the door is outside it is directly opposite the kitchen and the bathroom. It also looks out on the back verandah. I asked what stupidity is this, to put the servant’s room in the house, and I was told that if the official had a big family the children could remain in the room. I then asked what was going to happen if the children were sick and the servant had to come in? Then they said the servant would have to come in, and if the servant went out during the day the children could stay there again. I think the Minister knows the background of the Afrikaner nation better than this. The living together should not occur. We do not want it. The servant’s room should be in the backyard. I want to tell the Minister that many railway workers have come and spoken to me. They want to have their own houses, but not a departmental house with a servant’s room in it. They prefer to have their own house, but not such a house as this. The Minister is going to have endless difficulty with his railway workers, and we on this side of the House want to ask the Minister earnestly not to proceed with this. I am grateful for certain railway houses that have been built at Crosby. These are nice and comfortable little dwellings. Why should the Minister now depart from this style and have other plans for houses in which the servant’s room will form part of the dwelling. The small extra cost entailed in putting the servant’s room in the backyard is little enough to prevent this sort of thing. I want to express the hope that the Minister will give serious consideration to the matter, and that he will not proceed with the building of the houses. Then I want to direct attention again to Park Station, Johannesburg. I spoke last year about it. The Europeans are swamped by natives on the railway platforms. Today the natives when the train arrives at Johannesburg station, refuse to use the bridge that has been built for them. Instead of that the position arises that when certain trains come in thousands of natives rush through the subway jostling the Europeans in doing so. I have already corresponded with the General Manager over the matter. It is tragic to stand and look as the train comes in and to see how European mothers, often with children, are often pushed out of the way by the natives who are rushing past. I think that is a stain on the administration. The Minister stated last year that they will appoint special people to regulate the traffic on the platforms. Immediately on my return I went to look, but I did not see any of these people there. The position had become worse, and today it is worse than ever before. The Minister stated that the station had become too small, and the General Manager of Railways gave me a similar answer some time ago; I cannot say whether it is correct. The stations are small in many cases, but the natives refuse to make use of the bridge, and it will relieve the position a lot if they are compelled to do this. The Minister has stated that as soon as they buy the Wanderers and the station is extended, a plan will be made to remedy this state of affairs. But in the meanwhile an improvement can be made if the natives make use of the bridge. There is something that struck me particularly during this discussion, and this was that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) read out certain confidential letters which come down to this, that the bilingual policy on the railways is being virtually ignored. That is what it boils down to. The hon. member wanted to place the blame on the General Manager, because we know that he dominates the Minister of Railways. The Minister wanted, however, to protect the official and he said it was not the General Manager, but that it was a Cabinet decision. Well, if this is the case we say that the so-called bilingualism to which the Government applies itself, is a farce. We do not need to take any notice, then, of the vague declarations that the Government makes in favour of bilingualism. An end should be put to this sort of thing. I am glad that the Minister has stated that this is a Cabinet decision, so that it is not necessary for us to blame the General Manager. We on this side of the House, want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to apply bilingualism in the service in the letter and in the spirit. We cannot tolerate any deviation from this. Accordingly, we are making an earnest appeal for him to see that the policy is carried out. Before I resume my seat, there is another small matter, and that is in connection with the table stewards on the trains. The Minister must meet them a little more. It is sad to see how these young men and women have to work up to 15 and 17 hours no matter how tired they are, while they remain responsible for all cups and other tableware that they break or that disappear. It is an injustice that is being done to these young men and women. The Minister will say that this is very little, but even if it is only a sixpence the policy remains wrong. How many of us, when we have gone to the boarding house or to other places, have seen forks and other tableware bearing the letters “S.A.R.” and the poor table stewards have to pay when the cutlery disappears. You get peculiar people who take these things away with them. They are also sometimes careless with cups and other breakable articles, and the table stewards are held responsible. I think it is not proper to make them pay, and I hope that the Minister will be accommodating in this respect, and alter this policy of his.

I want to object very seriously to the accusations which were levelled at this side by a member like the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), and especially in connection with the Free State. I shall not reply to it, but I express the hope that even members on the other side will disapprove of such language being used in this House towards fellow-members. If It happens again, that hon. member can certainly expect this side of react very strongly. I should like to bring the following matters to the notice of the hon. Minister of Transport. At Frankfort one of the workers, while engaged on his work, succumbed to heart failure. He left a widow with five or six orphans. These people were in such necessitous circumstances that they did not have clothes to attend the funeral of the father. I want to ask the Minister whether provision cannot be made for cases of this nature. If the public had not collected money for the widow, she and her children would certainly not have been able to attend the funeral. That is the position in which some of the workers find themselves. I want to make a plea that those people should be paid a living wage. These people work hard, from early in the morning until late at night, in all sorts of weather. I also want to associate myself with the appeal which has been made to the Minister to give those people a few suits of clothes per year. The work which they are called upon to do is of a rough nature. For example, they have to work with artificial manure which plays havoc With their clothes, and their wages are so low that these people practically go about naked because they cannot afford to buy working clothes for themselves. I ask the Minister in all seriousness to go into this matter and to do what he can to make life bearable for those people. Then I want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. Some time ago I received a letter from Villiers, from which it appears that a truck-load of cattle was sent to Johannesburg. From Villiers to Johannesburg it is flat country, and when the stock was slaughtered in Johannesburg two carcases were turned down altogether. The reason was that those carcases were so bruised that they were totally unfit for consumption. That should convince the Minister that there is something wrong. There are no mountains on that line; it is flat country, a distance of seventy miles, and if two carcases were bruised so badly, there must have been carelessness in connection with the conveyance of those animals to the market. I want to ask the Minister favourably to consider whether this person cannot be compensated for that loss. I also want to ask the Minister to make provision for better handling of cream cans on the railways. Numbers of cream and milk cans which are sent to be marketed are handled so roughly that they arrive in a bad condition. They are handled roughly when they are offloaded and loaded. These cans are expensive and sometimes unprocurable, and they ought to be handled with more care. We had the same experience in connection with baggage. One need only go to the station to see how travelling trunks are handled. They are fastened with ropes in order to protect them against handling. Then I want to make a further appeal to the Minister in connection with the station building at Frankfort. The station is simply a disgrace to a district and town of that status. I want to ask the Minister to look ahead. Settlers are being placed along the Wilger River above the Vaal Dam, and once the settlers are there, the traffic on the station will increase considerably. The buildings at the moment are in such a bad state that they must have a detrimental effect on the health of the staff employed there. They are made of galvanised iron. During the winter months it is particularly cold and in summer it is excessively warm. I think Frankfort deserves a better station, if one bears in mind the fact that other small places have buildings of stone and hard brick. It is not fair to leave such a building in Frankfort. Then I also want to make an appeal to the Minister to erect a lean-to at the goods shed at Frankfort on that side where the wagons unload wool. When it rains and the farmer opens his load of wool, it gets wet. It will be quite a simple matter to erect a lean-to, and there will then be enough shelter for the wool wagons when unloading takes place. I want to ask the Minister favourably to consider this matter. Then I also want to ask the Minister favourably to consider the question of providing adequate accommodation on the motor vehicles between Villiers and Warden. It is simply a disgrace that Europeans and non-Europeans should have to travel practically together on those buses. I personally looked at one of those buses. There are five seats for Europeans, and the natives sit behind them. Then there is room for the luggage and parcels, and the native passengers sit on top of the luggage. I want to give the Minister the assurance that there is heavy traffic between Villiers and Warden, and it will definitely be an advantage to make available further facilities for those people who make use of the bus service. Then I want to make an appeal to the Minister in connection with the train service from Frankfort to Johannesburg and Bethlehem. There is a tri-weekly train service between Bethlehem and Johannesburg, and also between Johannesburg and Bethlehem. Those trains are usually so packed that it causes great inconvenience to the travelling public. I want to ask the Minister to go into this matter and to see what revenue is derived from that line, and then he will agree with me that it will pay to institute a service to and fro between Johannesburg and Bethlehem. If the Minister investigates the matter, he will find that it will pay. Various members are asking for an extension of railway lines and for new lines. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that a desire has been expressed that the railway line from Warden should be extended. There are large numbers of people who have to drive their stock to Harrismith, Bethlehem or Kroonstad, in order to convey it to the market. The distances are tremendous. We have learned that it is proposed to double the line between Johannesburg and Durban. But if this extension from Warden to Vrede or Villiers can take place, wherever the Minister finds it best, it will mean that that line will be seventy miles shorter than the line from Johannesburg via Standerton and Newcastle to Durban. I want to ask the Minister, thefefore, for the sake of the future, seriously to consider this matter. It will definitely be of greater value to those parts and to the country than a doubling of the line. It will be a useful extension.

I discovered this country 38 years ago, and the first train I saw was at Port Elizabeth. There was a cow-catcher behind that train and its purpose—I was told—was to prevent cows from running up against it. I must congratulate the Minister of Railways on the improvements made since then. But we still have trains arriving in Port Elizabeth behind time. On one occasion a train did arrive to the minute, and the passengers took up a collection for the driver, but the driver said he was sorry he could not take it and explained it was “last night’s train”. I want to put in a plea for the stewards and stewardesses on the train.

Whatever economies may be required, these employees are overworked; in fact there is almost a state of slavery for them on the trains, and I suggest to the Minister that it is time two shifts were provided. As the Minister knows on the most fertile side uf Port Elizabeth we have a narrow gauge line that is antedeluvian in every respect, and may I say that if the Government wants to alleviate the food position they will see to it that the Humansdorp line is converted into a broad gauge line at the earliest date.

Where is the food coming from?

It is coming from Longkloof and district, an area which when fully cultivated—and it is being properly cultivated today—could feed the whole population of the Eastern Province. I also want to ask the Minister of Railways to engage a few more Scotsmen as engineers on the railways, and at the same time he should not try to apply the bilingual test when engaging them, because I want him to understand that all Scotsmen are trilingual. They can speak English, Scotch and profane—particularly the last, if he wants it in regard to their occupation. The more of them you engage the better it will be for the railways, as far as technical application and speed are concerned. I travel to Grahamstown periodically, I am on a committtee there, and may I point out to the Minister that it takes eight hours to travel by train from Port Elizabeth to Grahamstown, while by road the journey can be done in an hour-and-a-half, and by air in half-an-hour. We cannot get away from the fact that the railways can be easily speeded up. I also want to make a special plea for the people who live in Port Elizabeth and work in the offices at the station. They work under electric light almost all the day.

Apart from the expense of the electric light this is very bad for the health of the people concerned. As a member of the City Council of Port Elizabeth I had the opportunity, a little while ago, of hearing a discussion in regard to the electrification of the railway from Port Elizabeth to Grahamstown and to other outlying districts. I cannot understand how it is that towns other than Cape Town, Durban and Johannesburg are not considered as they ought to be considered in regard to the electrification of the railways. Whilst attending Parliament I have been living outside Cape Town at Newlands in fact and I have no hesitation in saying that the electrification of the railways here is the most wonderful thing I have seen in this country so far as passenger traffic is concerned. I want to congratulate the Minister on having through his staff prepared new plans and specifications for a new station at Port Elizabeth. Immediately these plans were seen by the intelligent people of Port Elizabeth

Where are they?

The city is full of them.

When they saw these plans they realised that the layout would cause great congestion and would retard the progress of Port Elizabeth considerably. New plans have been introduced by the city council, and although the railway people have for several years been wanting to build a new station in Port Elizabeth, I still plead with the Minister to consider the alternate plans that have now been produced and ask him to remember that the extension included in the new arrangement will benefit the city for all time. Finally, I would like to thank the Minister of Railways for the work he has done during the past year. He has administered the railways in a manner that must evoke the admiration of all. He is the right man in the right place and I congratulate him on the progress of the railways since he assumed office.

Mr.

Speaker, the remark that comes to my mind in respect of this debate on the amendment and in respect of all that has been said is: Tell me the old, old story. I am quite sure if I were to agree to the amendment proposed for the second year in succession more or less in the same terms, by the Opposition, no one would be more surprised than they themselves.

Hear, hear.

I might almost take the Hansard reply that I made last year and read it out verbatim, and it would answer practically every question that has been raised with the exception of those questions that have been put in connection with aviation. I need not delay the House unnecessarily in repeating this year the arguments which I used last year, and which are on record; and I have no doubt that hon. members who are interested in the problems have already heard or studied them. I should like to ask, Mr. Speaker, in dealing first with this question of the amendment: What possible purpose could be served by having an enquiry by a select committee into staff promotions on the South African Railways since 1939? Should we turn the men who have been promoted out of office and put in others we would merely achieve a complete dislocation of the whole service. What is the idea of this enquiry? On the railways we appoint men because of merit, and we do that in accord with the law. Who can judge their merit best—a select committee of members of Parliament or those people who work with them day in and day out, the managers, the senior officers of the Administration? Who are the best judges of merit? I think it is simply childish to imagine that you can run the South African Railways by a select committee.

Is merit always the criterion?

I say that merit is always the criterion as far as I am concerned. It is true, however, that if you do not appoint a man because his merit is not equal to the job, that man has a grievance, because he does not realise that his merits are not of the standard required. If there is one thing that you rarely find in a man—and I include myself—it is the capacity to judge the amount of merit ne possesses. No, I have no intention of agreeing to an enquiry, because some of the friends of the Opposition, some of their bonny blue-eyed boys have gone to them for promotion rather than stand on their merits. I may say this, talking about the tendency of some members of our staff to go to hon. members opposite, that I have had private conversations off the record with senior officers quoted against me by hon. members opposite. I cannot even talk privately in a friendly way to my own senior officers without some of them going to members opposite and telling them what I have said, and these remarks being used in argument against me. That is what we come to when hon. members opposite encourage senior officers on the railways to bring them their petty troubles to influence me to promote them.

Don’t you believe in democracy?

I have nothing against democracy. They can do that if they think that they are improving their chances of promotion. If they consider that this discussion is of any service, they are welcome to it. Let me tell the House once more, as I have already done ad nauseam, that I do not make appointments. The appointments are not made by the Minister or General Manager. They are made by means of a fairly elaborate piece of machinery. Recommendations have to be put forward by heads of departments, and these have to go before the Railway Service Commission, which has access to all the records, and it is they who decide who is the right man to be given the appointment. Then it goes to the General Manager, and if it is an appointment of over. £1,500 a year it comes to me. Or if the General Manager disagrees with the Railway Service Commission over an appointment, it comes before the Minister. If I turn down the Railway Service Commission’s recommendation the matter is reported by the Controller and Auditor-General to the Select Committee of Parliament. So hon. members will see that there is a complete check in the making of appointments in the railway service. They are not in the ordinary course made by me. These are not made in the ordinary sense by me at all.

How often do you turn recommendations down?

If I turn recommendations down, they are reported to the House by the Controller and Auditor-General.

What about the recommendations of the heads of departments? That is where the trouble lies.

There are invariably more than one recommendation made, because various senior officers are entitled to nominate. In regard to (b), (c) and (d) of this amendment, it is, of course, suggested that we should hold up supplies, that we should appoint a Select Committee in order to enquire into some improper practices which have developed in connection with the Navy War Funds. I suggest that that is using a steam hammer to kill a flea with a vengeance. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood) mentioned this matter to me some time ago, and I immediately ordered a full investigation and that investigation I understand is now under way, and if I find that there has been any cross booking of work in the way suggested, if there is any suspicion of it, the matter will be probed to the very bottom. We will not stand for any manipulation of our time-sheets or anything else. But I would like to make it quite clear that very often an idea gets abroad that we are giving something away which is, in fact, paid for. We have supplied certain materials from time to time to these organisations, and they have paid for them out of their funds. However, if this allegation is true, if there is anything in it, I will take proper action, but I do not think this House would suggest that we appoint a Select Committee to look into the matter. I may say that we always supported exhibitions and things of that kind. In the case of the Empire Exhibition in 1936, the railways paid £60,000 in work and material. In the case of the Voortrekker Celebration, we paid £27,000 in work and material, apart from the fact that we gave reduced fares to participants in that celebration. If it is improper for us to do these things why was it not objected to then? These are only two recent examples, but there are many more. In regard to Clause (e) of the amendment, this deals with the 15 per cent. tax, which has nothing to do with the Minister of Transport. It is an administrative Act approved of by this House. If there is anything against it at law, then the Government law advisers should have reported it to the Controller and Auditor-General. The fact that the Government law advisers say it is within the competence of the Government to do, I think is sufficient answer to the hon. member. I do not think a Select Committee appointed by this House will arrive at any other conclusion. So much for the amendment. I now come to the remarks of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). He alleged—and it was a rather interesting allegation—that the fact that I had recently raised the wages on the railways was a clear indication of an early General Election. Why will these people continue to judge others by themselves? Do they think that the Minister of Transport, controlling this great organisation on behalf of a great state, is likely to condescend to play a little trick like that merely because an election is pending? If that is their outlook, then they talk a different language politically, to the language we talk. It merely illustrates the danger of allowing people like that ever to get into power, if that is their opinion of the great state service which I have the honour and privilege of handling on behalf of Parliament. The hon. member also alleged that the 10 per cent. increase was to cover additions in wages, and that I had asked for too much. That is not so. I would remind him that in my last Budget speech, I made it quite clear that expenditure was rising at such a rate that it would be necessary for me to make provision during the year of increasing our tariff. I pointed out the red light of danger in regard to expenditure, not in regard to revenue, as the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper) said, but in regard to expenditure, and this 10 per cent. not only covers increased wages but also covers the additional costs which the railways are being put to at the present time. I stated in my Budget speech that consideration will be given later in the year to the manner in which this deficit should be met. The hon. member quoted the case of Brig. Holthouse, and wondered why he was paid less than his assistant. Brig. Holthouse is at present in the service of the External Affairs Department, and it is from them that he is getting the pay he is now drawing, so that there is a quite simple technical explanation for the apparent discrepancy. The remarks which he made about Col. Leverton, if I may say so, were completely unwarranted. Our greatest expert on air matters is Col. Leverton. He is a very competent administrative officer and he has studied the question of air development from the start of air services, and I want to say that as far as Col. Leverton is concerned, he stands very high indeed in the hierarchy of railway officers as a great authority on the air. The air services are being generally reorganised and there will be other appointments in connection with it. I may say this in regard to the appointments, that it is not entirely a matter for myself or for the General Manager or anybody else. Any appointments made to the air service will be made in the ordinary way. They will be chosen on their qualifications. The hon. member also criticised me on the bilingual policy. He covered a great deal of ground that had been covered last Session, but he raised a question, reading various letters, which he attributed to the General Manager; but I would like to make it perfectly clear that I am responsible for those letters because the General Manager does not issue letters of that kind unless under my instructions, and it is rather unfair that his name should be dragged into these matters. I am responsible, and I am prepared to accept the responsibility. The hon. member objected to the fact that in certain cases we gave officers two years to obtain the language qualification when we promote them. It is only being done at the present time as far as soldiers up north are concerned. But why object when I do it? It was the policy of Mr. Pirow and it was the policy of my predecessors. They did the same. Two years’ allowance was always given. In these cases where the man is not sufficiently bilingual he is given two years to qualify, and he is promoted subject to that qualification. When they do it, it is all right, but when I do it is all wrong. As to the question of keeping records of the home language, here again I am wrong, but of course, they were right. What is the purpose of keeping a record of the home language. If the railway servants are what they must be, there is no necessity for it. They must possess the necessary language qualification for the job. It is laid down in the law. We see that it is carried out. If they do that, what concern of ours is it what language they talk to their wives at home? What have we got to do with it? Of course, if we want to separate the sheep from the goats, if we want to have a row on every occasion as to how many Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking officers are being promoted, then of course, it is very useful to have particulars of the language which the servant employs at home. If there is to be any smelling out, it is a useful thing to have. I am accused of having Gestapos and all sorts of strange things in my Department. That is a thing a Gestapo would like. But I do not have Gestapos, because I do not smell out; I am not concerned with the private affairs of my staff. Let me remind the House that if I sin I do so in good company. In 1937 what did Mr. Pirow say? He said this—

That was said by Mr. Pirow in reply to a question in this House. That is the policy I am carrying out and with which I intend to continue. If it were the right policy in Mr. Pirow’s time, it is more right now when the unilingual man is a greater exception. The hon. member read a letter regarding the nomination of unilingual men but his inferences were entirely wrong. We have laid it down that even if a man is unilingual, he has to be nominated if he is entitled to nomination on his qualifications. We do it so that the man who has the necessary qualifications cannot be overlooked. If he is not bilingual, he cannot get the job, but we say to the heads of the departments: “You nominate him; the Railway Service Commission and the officers concerned will see if he is bilingual”. If he can pass the language examination then he is entitled to the job. I would remind the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that an Afrikaans-speaking location overseer was involved in just such a case, and when my attention was drawn to the matter, he was given a test in English. In that particular case it was an Afrikaans-speaking man who was not nominated because they believed he could not speak English. In order to avoid these things we say: “You nominate them, and let those who can best judge, decide whether he is bilingual or not, according to the law and the regulations”. I would again like to emphasise that I am responsible for those instructions. The hon. member for Uitenhage (Mr. Dolley) said that both sides appeared to complain as their friends were not given preference when it came to appointments. That is very true, and of course, it is an outstanding indication of how very fair the Railway Administration and Minister are in regard to their appointment policy. I thank the hon. member for the kind remarks he made about railwaymen in war and war work, and on their behalf I would thank the hon. member for Uitenhage and on my own behalf I would endorse what he said. That also goes for other members who were good enough to refer to the railway staff, Regarding his remarks as to the development at Uitenhage, as the hon. member knows, I have been personally examining the contemplated plans for Uitenhage with a view to getting a move on and I hope that no time will be lost unnecessarily. I would point out, however, that the plans are extensive and must be well prepared. I will also deal with the housing scheme there as quickly as possible and in that connection I may say that I have it in mind to appoint a committee to study the defects in our houseownership scheme, which have been manifest for some time, so that we can try and improve that scheme in the interest of the railway service. The hon. member urged that owing to the revision of rates of bonus work, more supervision was necessary, and he suggested that two works managers should be appointed. I may say that the facts hardly bear that out. The average gains recorded by artisans on bonus work under the revised conditions reflect an increase compared with gains under the previous conditions. This effectively demonstrates that output has been improved and consequently the necessity for increased supervision as a result of the changed condition is not justified. Now I come to the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). He dealt with the question of our air policy and if he will permit it, I will discuss that later when I come to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He came back to the question of the Hutchinson water supply. So far as this question is concerned, in spite of the reiteration of the allegations and charges which are always being made by hon. members opposite, the position is very simple. I went into it in great detail last year, and I do not need to traverse so much of the same ground again, but I would like to emphasise this: First of all, from the railway standpoint our water contract at Hutchinson is a good contract. The price compares favourably with all similar contracts. It is lower than the average. The increases granted since the begnning of the war are justified by our engineers as being necessary to cover the additional costs involved, and are similar to increases that have been made to other contractors under similar circumstances. The contract was first made in 1926, and in 1938 my predecessor extended it for a further period of fifteen years, so that it is a running contract now. In the light of the above, the only question in issue is whether I can continue a contract with a Cabinet Minister who has held the contract over a long period and without whose assistance I would be in serious difficulty over my water supply. Nothing has been done improperly. No rules of procedure or any constitutional practice in this country have been violated. The hon. member for Calvinia who discussed this matter, also read out copious extracts from the Select Committee on a Bill introduced into the Senate in 1927, although I believe that Bill was actually prepared in 1911. I would remind the House that in 1927 when this House had an opportunity of passing a Bill which would have covered a case like this, in a special way, they did not take that opportunity. This decision of the House is reinforced when we remember that the Cape Parliament in 1897 also considered a Bill of the same kind, and at that time too the Cape House did not proceed with the Bill. These facts are significant. Am I to do on my own what two Parliaments when they had the opportunity of doing it, deliberately refrained from doing? And incidentally, I would remind the House who was in power in 1927. These Bills are very germane to the discussion. What did the Cape Bill say, which proves what was necessary if you want to achieve what the hon. member says we should do in this country, and what does the other Bill say? I will read the essential clauses in each Bill. The Cape Bill said this in Clause 2—

The Union Bill of 1927 was much shorter. In Clause 1 it says—

And that applies to members as well—

On two occasions Parliament turned that down; on two occasions Parliament decided that we should not proceed with it. If they had proceeded with it, and if that was the law there are more people than the Minister of Lands who would be involved. There have been several members of Parliament who would either have had to give up contracts with the Railway Department or given up their seats. That is the situation. Nothing wrong has been done.

Are you not avoiding the issue? We are not dealing with members of Parliament. We are dealing with a Cabinet Minister.

Here is an important issue. A Cabinet Minister’s honour must apparently be far above the honour of a member of Parliament. Do you expect me to do something as a member of Parliament that I would not do as Minister?

A Minister is in a different position. Why do you not follow the British precedent?

Members of Parliament and Ministers of the Cabinet are one and the same. If we must pass a special law to keep Cabinet Ministers in order and not members of Parliament, we would have a very interesting position. In these matters let us remember this, that the real test is the honour of your public men. If you have any fear that you have public men who require a law to keep them in order, then the sooner you get rid of them the better. I am a much greater beliver on relying on a man’s honour whether it is a Minister or a member of Parliament. The only difference between a member of Parliament and a Minister is that a Minister gets a somewhat larger salary otherwise their position is the same.

Do you not believe in the British practice? When it suits your convenience, you refuse to follow British practice.

When it suits your convenience you want the Government to follow British practice.

If I say that I have anything to do with Great Britain at all I am immediately accused of being anti-South African, and now when it happens to suit the hon. member’s case he asks me to pledge myself to the view of the British Parliament. It is quite clear from what I have said that there has been no break of proprietary or of law in this case where, in fact, the contract has been running for a great many years and still has a long term to run. The hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) also raised the question of making money available for roads. I would like to explain to him, if he does not know it, that road making is not a railway matter. We pay a sum annually to the Provincial Councils which is equal to what we would pay in the form of licences on our cars. But we do not make roads. During the past year we gave £25,000 to the Provincial Administration as licences for our cars, and we have also agreed to payment of certain sums to the National Roads Board in connection with the elimination of crossings.

Why do you evade the issue of the actual available supply of water at Hutchinson?

I am not evading the issue. That is a highly complicated and technical issue.

That is the main issue. You have sufficient water.

I will tell the House the position. I have some boreholes which give water at Hutchinson. Those boreholes are laid in the centre of a little bit of ground, the whole of the surrounding country belonging to the Minister of Lands. If I start to draw from these boreholes simultaneously and they can keep up their maximum output all the time, I would still fall short of my supply by 20 per cent. If they all began to peter out when they are all being drawn on, I probably will not get 20 per cent. of my water supply, and then I shall be in the soup, and trains will not be able to stop at Hutchinson. These are matters for experts, and my technical experts tell me it is not even worth while probing these holes. Why should I do it? I would have to go to the extent of putting up special purifying plants, because I am informed that these boreholes do not take the same treatment. Different boreholes need a different treatment.

That is nonsense.

The thing is not straight forward.

You are avoiding the issue.

I am not avoiding the issue.

Your real reason is then that if you use your own water, you will weaken the Minister’s supply?

No, the reason is the other way about. Now I come to the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. Haywood). He stated that I was in a bad way. I do not know how he arrived at that conclusion. On the contrary, I would like to tell him that I am in a remarkably good way. With practically everything I buy and pay for, with the increased cost of living with the increased wages, up by not 10 per cent. but from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent., I have carried on through the war without raising a single tariff, and when I did raise the tariffs, I did not raise them by 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. as everybody else had done, I raised them by 10 per cent. The hon. member said I am in a bad way. If I had to raise the tariffs by 100 per cent., I would have been in a bad way, but I think the House will agree that I am very far from being in a bad way. He also stated that if only I would use my reserves, I would not need to raise the tariff 10 per cent. If by saying that he means that I should use my Betterment and Renewals Fund in meeting my current expenditure, I suggest that the financial pundits in this House would have a good deal to say about it. The hon. member for George will certainly object. Take my Rates Equalisation Fund. My Rates Equalisation Fund is £10,000,000; on the basis of his calculations it would go in two years and when the rainy day came, which he was threatening us with and which he said would inevitably come, we would have nothing at all to meet it with. If in the last war—I repeat this although I have said it before—we had £7,000,000 in our Rates Equalisation Fund, we could have gone through the whole period of the depression without raising a single tariff and without reducing a single salary or retrenching a single man. He now suggests that instead of keeping the £10,000,000 for that I should squander it on current account so that when the rainy day comes I have not even the shadow of an umbrella to put over my railway workers. He also questioned my right to give the Defence Department a rebate. My right, of course, is unquestionable, if I have not the right to give a rebate and I had to take away the rebates I have given, I know which side of this House would squeal first. Why should I not give a rebate? The railways, after all, are a very big factor in this country. The railways are a very big asset to the State in any war. If anything overcame our country we would lose a very good thing in the railways. The railway user himself is interested, but as a railway user he pays no taxation; The railways are free from taxation of any kind whatever and the relatively trifling rebate I gave to Defence traffic in order to help in this small way—I think the whole of it amounted to four or five million pounds during this war—is a contribution by the railways to the war effort, with the success of which our interests are very much bound up. If, as I say, I did away with all these rebates, there would be a crisis. I was asked why I did not lay a statement on the Table to show the losses incurred. If I were to put statements on the Table showing losses it would be a very illuminating document. Certain sections of people of this community would express gratitude to the railway user if they realised how much was lost on agricultural traffic. Does the agricultural industry today want me not to raise tariffs and to meet current expenditure out of reserves. Today the farmer is relatively prosperous. I might say that the farmer is so prosperous that he could bear the extra costs. All I did say is that we will ask the farmer, together with all other sections of the community, to bear his share, and because his rates are relatively low in comparison with other rates his increase of 10 per cent. is also relatively low. In addition to that I did not touch foodstuffs. Certain essential foodstuffs in which farmers are interested I have left at the old tariffs. There is also a complaint made about my giving various reductions to our neighbours in the North, but the people who complain fail to realise that that is to encourage the sale of their products in the North. They get the benefit of it and noone else. I can stop the export trade in farming produce but I want to encourage it. Just have a look at the final use which is made of some of these tariffs and you will realise that the producer and the agriculturist are the people who benefit every time. The hon. member quoted me in 1939 and I was very interested to see that in 1939 he and I were apparently in agreement but I would point out that the position has changed since 1939. There is a war on and as the railways are relieved from taxation, the small contribution they make by means of any rebate is trifling to what they would pay if they were citizens of this country. As there was no war in 1939 I took he view I did. I am quite certain that if I was still an ordinary member of the House and of the Party as I was then. I would take the view I did then in the light of circumstances today. The hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock said that the 10 per cent. I but on my tariffs militates against the development of industry. I agree with that. All charges militate against the development of industry. If one did not have to pav wages and interest and such things one could develop industries in a wonderful way. But transport costs money and we have to pay it. On the other hand the 10 per cent. I added on to the wages of my workers also helps industry. Far from retarding industry it certainly helps it. No. Mr. Speaker, once more I emphasise that the only thing I can do when I have increased expenditure in these times of relative prosperity is to increase tariffs. Our Rates Equalisation Fund cannot be used to cover that kind of charge, It can only be used to cover a temporary recession in revenue, and not an increase of expenditure, so that I do not have to reduce salaries and raise tariffs and so aggravate such period of depression by any action of the railways. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman)—I see he is not in his seat and as I have a fairly long reply to him I will convey it to him in writing. He raised the question of the Cape Widows’ Pension Fund and suggested that as it had a large sum of money accumulated it should pay a higher pension. I may say that on the advice of the actuaries I am actually paying, at present, a bonus of 50 per cent. on the pensions which these widows get. Naturally this is a matter on which we must be guided by the actuaries. I come now to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). He also went off the rails, rather, on the matter of air transport.

You are rather mixing your metaphors.

Yes. I did that deliberately. Regarding the Air Convention, as there still appears to be some confusion at least in the minds of members opposite regarding the Chicago Conference and the part played by South Africa in it, it would be just as well if I tell members in greater detail the history of the matter. In 1943 the Conference of the Commonwealth was held in London to consider the question of post-war civil aviation. At that Conference it was unanimously agreed that the only satisfactory way to deal with international flying was to have a multilateral convention and to set up an international authority which would authorise and control international air services, aircraft quotas, frequencies, rates, fares, etc., and this was later expressed by the British Government in a White Paper which became known as the Balfour Plan. Australia and New Zealand went further and recommended that an international authority be set up who should own the actual equipment and operate the service themselves. That is what the hon. member for George supported, much to my surprise. I did not believe any other member opposite would support such a suggestion. I would be very surprised if they did, but the hon. member for George, presumably not quite understanding what he was talking about, did so. Canada actually translated the Balfour Plan into a written convention which ultimately served as the basis of the discussions at Chicago. There were therefore three conflicting plans but they all agreed in essence in that they all supported the idea of an international authority to control flying throughout the world. That has always been the point of view of South Africa and this Government. South Africa found itself in full agreement with this idea and therefore supported the plan submitted by Canada and agreed to by Great Britain. Unfortunately this ideal was not accepted in Chicago, but only in that respect was the Chicago Conference a failure. It had nothing to do, as the hon. member suggested, with the fifth freedom. That came in quite late and the fact that we did not agree to that was not because of the failure. It lay in the fact that the international authority which was going to supervise everyone was not agreed to. Arising out of that Conference, however, came two invitations, one asking the states concerned to grant freedoms one and two and the other freedoms one to five inclusive. As I mentioned in my opening speech, the Union Government has agreed to freedoms one and two, and will, subject to the necessary safeguards, agree to freedoms one to five. We have accepted no international obligations whatsover as a result of our partnership with the Commonwealth; and that is as far as we expect to go with this for some time. It is suggested that I might offer routes to America or Russia. I have no means of offering routes to anyone. Any country can come to our international airport under reciprocal conditions, just as any country can come to our sea ports. I have no say in whether America or any other country will come to my international airport. I said “my”; I apologise. I have been accused of saying “my railways”. I mean Government airports. These things are quite outside my control. Russia can come if she wishes. We still retain sovereignty of our air. This is as far as I expect to go in the partnership with Great Britain, to have a route which is as nearly a paying route as an international route can possibly be between this country and Great Britain where the bulk of our traffic goes. But in saying that, I do not mean that we expect to monopolise all the air services to and from South Africa. Our African neighbours will naturally expect, and America too, for that matter, to fly to South Africa, and, subject to the usual rights of reciprocity, we shall agree to such proposals. We are prepared to agree at once that any country can use any route which takes it to our airports. Our South African Airways will not have a monopoly of flying in the Union, but I think that members will agree that the right to fly scheduled services should be controlled as it is in every other country including America in order to eliminate waste and ensure safety in operation. The conference to be held next month will not be under the aegis of the Commonwealth Council, but will be a gathering of neighbouring interests to discuss matters of importance to them in civil aviation in Southern Africa. We do not intend discussing questions affecting our Portuguese or Belgian friends which will form the subject of discussions with them at a later date. South Africa’s position in the international air pattern is that of a completely soverign state and it has been and will continue to be safeguarded. In the absence of an international convention we must revert back to the system of bilateral agreements and the clauses of those agreements will have to ensure that South Africa’s interests are not impaired. The only purpose of the Commonwealth Air Council is that it is established to keep under review the progress of Commonwealth air communications, to consider and advise on matters of common interest and to serve as a clearing house for information. What objection there is to our entering into such an arrangement I fail to conceive. I will say, however, in conclusion of this question, that I do hope hon. members opposite will assist and support the Government, if need be, with helpful and constructive criticism and also support it in all matters when we are negotiating and urging South Africa’s viewpoint in the international field. To attack the scheme merely because it involves supporting or co-operating with some other nation whom they do not like, is extremely dangerous and an unsatisfactory thing to do in international affairs. The hon. member for George discussed the question of having unofficial delegates attending our conference. This is an unusual procedure and the precedents he quoted are not precedents at all. There are no precedents. In the case of the Ottawa Conference Mr. Stuttaford and Mr. Heaton-Nicholls did not attend as official delegates but as unofficial advisers. Mr. Stuttaford was nominated by the Associated Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Nicholls represented the sugar industry They were nominated by commerce and industry for that purpose. These were the advisers which were sent to America to be near to Mr. Havenga, who was dealing with these problems and to give him advice if he wanted it. At this conference we shall have all the advisers on tap and need not send any. They will all be here including the hon. member for George. He will be here and we can ask his advice. I therefore do not propose to avail myself of this suggestion. The hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen) quite rightly pointed out that if we were going to enquire into appointments back to 1939 we should really go back to 1924, but as I have already dealt, I hope adequately, with that particular question, I need not raise it again. I would also like to thank the hon. member for his complimentary remarks on the services rendered by the railwaymen in war-time. It is true, as I said, that all we have done for the European workers does not apply to the non-Europeans, but we have gone a long way on the road to improving conditions for the non-Europeans, and we must not go too far ahead of public opinion in these matters. He also raised the question of the 10 per cent. flat increase, and I would point out that the Board of Trade is now enquiring into the question of railway tariffs in relation to industry; and any recommendations they make, apart from the 10 per cent. increase, will be sympathetically considered. Tariffs can still be raised or lowered as the case may be. In regard to the petrol rate I would point out that I only brought that right back to what I found it to be when I took office in 1939. He dealt with the question of passenger traffic, but I would point out that as regards passenger traffic for the future on the railways, that is not so much a matter for tariffs as a matter for the reorganisation of the whole business. If anything like the present flow of passenger traffic, both European and non-European, is to be maintained after the war, we will have to alter our conceptions of passenger traffic radically. The day is going when we can have two people in a compartment and one in a coupe, and carry anything like the taffic we shall have to carry. We shall have to find other means of handing traffic. Without violating the privacy of passengers, we shall have to crowd more passengers into the same coaches. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) said that a train crew was recently searched when someone lost some jewels in Cape Town, but the railway police deny that, and if the hon. member has any proof that they were searched I will be glad if he will supply it. If he cannot supply the proof we need say no more about the matter. He referred to cases of a marine signalman and berthing master being treated very leniently. I may say that both I and the General Manager thought that these men were treated very lenietly and pointed out that in future these cases must be regarded more seriously. I am checking dates with regard to my answer, but I would point out that in regard to any officer of the railways who is punished under disciplinary procedure, he has the right to appeal after the decision is given and until he has exercised or refused to exercise that right, the question of sentence is sub judice. He dealt with action taken in connection with certain police cases in Natal. I can assure the hon. member that if the Minister of Transport had to attend courts, as he suggests I should, in connection with every case, I would never be out of court, because I am advised that the Minister of Transport is practically always in court. But I would like to make it clear that my non-attendance on that occasion was not meant as a discourtesy to the court. He spoke about the Ossewabrandwag, about remarks I made about the Ossewabrandwag in 1941, but if ever any remarks of mine were completely correct, as it turned out, it was those remarks. Where is the O.B. today? He also accused me of saying that there is no evil in the O.B., but I cannot trace any such statement by me. Regarding the lost mail-bags, four of these apparently fell out owing to a defective lock on a carriage door. Three were recovered on the line, but the fourth is still missing. It has probably been picked up by someone and the matter is still being pursued. The member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) said he was not at all satisfied with the progress with regard to the regrading of the Port Elizabeth main line. From Port Elizabeth to Doornkop, 77 miles of the line has already been regraded to 1 in 80. The section from Doornkop to Nauuwpoort is now being surveyed. I think that having regard to the shortage of staff and the difficulties of not having enough engineers, good progress has been made, but I do not blame the hon. member for hurrying me on. I may say with regard to the foreshore proposals at Port Elizabeth that the General Manager will visit Port Elizabeth as soon as he gets a report from the engineers. Regarding the Avontuur line, as the hon. member should know, if he is up to his work, I have undertaken to visit Avontuur and Langkloof immediately my Parliamentary duties permit. Then I can go into the question of what to do with that line better. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) dealt with proposals in connection with our native Staff Unions. He thought that they should not be debarred from having the national organisation recognised. I would like to tell him quite frankly that my experience of the so-called national organisation has been very unfortunate. We must not have party politics in the railways. It is not allowed on the part of our European servants and it certainly will not be allowed on the part of our native servants. Non-Europeans on the railways, in different systems and in different parts of the country, have entirely different conditions. Their problems differ, their wages differ and their conditions are different. They have a completely different set of problems and for the reason that that is so it has been suggested that the best way to organise the natives is to organise them by way of systems, and once having organised themselves into system unions, they could have a body which would be a national body and could speak for the whole of them. I have met this South African Railways and Harbours Union, which the hon. member calls a national body.

I did not say anything of the kind.

I have listened to many dissertations on the problems of the natives, until I have been bored stiff when meeting this national body. I have never been able to get down to tintacks and to get down to a discussion on railway problems. The moment they go away, however, there is a a violent attack, in the “Guardian”, on myself. That is not the way to deal with the negotiations

That is Communism.

Yes. Now that sort of thing does not work. It is a waste of time. If that is the only kind of union I can deal with I prefer not to deal with a union at all. The hon. member says that this organisation represents 8,000 natives and he regards it as a nation-wide union. I have, only in the last few months, been asking my natives to organise themselves into system unions so that I can talk to them intelligently. I have already met them and found them extremely intelligent. For the first time in history I am now getting into touch with the natives and discussing their problems. These unions today, although they were only going a few short months, have a membership of 9,500. I am very anxious to keep in touch with my natives, but they must organise themselves in such a way that I can discuss their problems with them. It is their problems as railway workers that I want to discuss with them and not the disabilities of natives in general throughout South Africa, which I know as well as they do The hon. member gave an illustration of 45 men who had been victimised, as he said. This is a very good illustration of what the National Union of Railway Workers is and does, and for that reason I would like to take up the time of the House for a moment. This National Union of Native Workers sent a telegram to the Minister of Labour—

Well, by arrangement, the Minister of Labour asked Mr. Ivan Walker to look into the matter, and this is what Mr. Ivan Walker said. The document is addressed to the Secretary of the Union—

1. (1) 75 natives were due to be paid off at Durban Point and to prevent their discharge the Engineer in Charge of the New Works agreed to take them over.
2. (2) They started work on a Saturady but on the Monday complained that the food was unsatisfactory. They were asked to exercise some patience as the job was not yet properly organised but they replied that failing an improvement in the position they would stop work by noon.
3. (3) On Tuesday morning the Compound Manager endeavoured to address the natives but was shouted down and this treatment was meted out also to the foreman and the assistant engineer.
4. (4) It was then decided to pay the natives off. The impression gained by the railways was that the employees were endeavouring to force the administration to return them to the Point where overtime was being paid frequently. It is stated that the employees obviously had no intention of settling down to the new work and that they would be discharged in any case …

I asked Mr. De Vries, Secretary of the South African Trades and Labour Council, to look into the matter, which he did, and he says—

That is all that I wish to say I do not want to have anything to do with this union, this so-called national union, the “National Organisation of non-European Railway Workers”, because they are not out to help but to make trouble The hon. member took exception to railway welfare workers assisting our natives to form themselves into unions.

I never said that either.

Then I misunderstood the hon. member, but I certainly inferred that he said our railway welfare officers were going beyond then-province in assisting the natives to form their unions. The hon. member gave cases of alleged victimisation, but all that has happened is this, that whenever advice has been asked our European Welfare officers have been instructed to assist the natives in any way they can. It is much better that these natives should be assisted by people who really have their interests at heart. I am now going ahead with the natives’ union on the same lines as we have with our European staff associations, and I hope that in view of the good that will come from the creation of these native staff associations, hon. members representing natives in this House will support me in my plans I will explain for the information of the hon. member—I presume he did raise the point though I am beginning to wonder whether he did—that the variation of rates of pay to natives in different parts of the country is due to the fact that at every point we have tried to adjust native wages to the scales fixed by the Wage Board, and we have brought these wages up to the standard required by private industry in any particular area. As to security of employment, the fact that the hon. member himself has quoted cases where a native has been in the service of the administration for 24 years indicates that there is in part security of employment. It is quite true we have not established a pension fund for natives, but we have introduced a system of paying gratuities for long service which is working satisfactorily. If progress is to be made in these matters this will only come about when I can discuss the matter with intelligent Africans in the railway service who will be able to inform me of the facts of the position, and possibly one day we may rise to pensions In regard to the question of the native police, the same conditions apply there as apply to our European police. They are not allowed to join the ordinary trade unions, because a policeman must be strictly under the orders of the Government and not of an outside body, but I felt it was unfair that our policemen should not have opportunities to present their staff grievances and they were allowed, subject to the qualification that in time of trouble they must stand by the Government—to join the recognised staff association and representations can be made on their behalf in regard to the conditions of employment if they feel that these are not satisfactory. Mr. Speaker, I now turn to the remarks made by the hon. member for Mossel May (Dr. Van Nierop). He dealt with the question of the social conditions in respect of the coloured people. He wanted me to understand that the public of Cape Town were not really satisfied with the present conditions. I really do not know whether they are satisfied or not. I do not understand why they always clamour at me and urge that I should segregate people on the railway trains when they do not segregate the non-Europeans on their buses and on their trams as well as in their halls and meeting places. Why should the hon. member for Mossel Bay have the odium put on me for something which the social conscience of Cape Town will not have?

They always had different compartments.

I am the Minister of Railways; I am not a social reformer. If I were a social reformer I would probably go the other way. Let me say further I have no sanction to do anything of this sort. I have no right to differentiate on account of the colour of passengers. If Parliament passes a law to give me power to do it I shall see whether. I can manage it. I think it is a thing we will find very difficult to enforce.

If we propose this will the Government accept it?

I have no authority to do this, so what is the use of asking me to take a strong line and make a reform which would be the first time it has ever been done in the Cape. I have no law behind me.

You mark certain carriages on the main line as reserved.

That is by regulation. If anyone challenges me about that regulation, where am I? I suggest that hon. members do not press that point too far. So far as Cape Town station is concerned, these complaints are well justified but we have done our best, and very largely as a result of representations by the hon. member we have made certain changes at the station. I have been down there and I do not think so far as I can see, that it has improved things very much. But I hope when our new station is built a great many of these social problems will naturally sort themselves out, and as far as the railways aré concerned they will do their best to see that is so. In regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Mossel Bay I find that the facts he has stated in regard to the behaviour of certain coloured passengers are essentially correct. The matter was not referred, however, to the Railway Administration. It has now been referred to the railway police for the necessary investigation. Then I have had complaints before about men engaged for work at Mossel Bay. I would remind the hon. member that three of the men who he advised me said they had to go back home on a certain day, actually worked on that day. That is what I found was actually the case when I investigated; it was proved they had worked that day. I do not suggest that the hon. member was aware of the fact, but I would like the hon. member to make sure that his facte are correct before he puts them up to the Administration. Mr. Speaker, I now come to the question referred to by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). He thinks our airways fares are too high. They are high at the present time. We have a very limited service. The service is being run by seven aircraft, and it may interest the House to know that despite the high fares I am today carrying more passengers on these seven aeroplanes than I carried on 29 aeroplanes before the war. These planes are booked up for six weeks ahead. Even if today that service is paying I have very heavy accumulated losses in the year, and surely the basis on which we must settle air fares is this. We must keep the fares to a point where we equate as nearly as possible the miximum use of planes by the public with the minimum degree of loss of service. We must get as near payability as possible whilst seeing that the aeroplanes travel full. If we can fill our planes at the highest possible fare we shall do so.

Why not increase the fare?

We will not increase the fares, but at the present time we are filling the planes at the rates quoted. The hon. member also raised the question of merchant sailors, and one or two other members raised the same point. Our sailors have always in the past been treated like the sailors of any shipping company. They are engaged for the voyage, and are paid off at the end of the volage. In practice they come back to the ship when she goes to sea again. That is the practice. It is the usual practice, but I do not say it is the best practice. I have an enquiry afoot at the present moment to see whether we can improve the conditions of our merchant sailors. We may have to leave some under the present system, but some of those who are employed more regularly by us we may be able to place on the same terms and conditions as our tug sailors. If we can do that I shall be only too pleased. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) also complained about the rebate on defence works. But I have dealt with that. Then the hon. member said that the morale of the workers was being brought down by work they had to do. I ask him to see if any one of the seven staff associations will confirm that statement that the morale of our workers is being lowered by the work they have to do.

Surely if you insist on making a man do something dishonest you will lower morale.

I do not know what individual the hon. member is referring to. I am only concerned with the workers in the mass, and if he believes that the workers are having their morale reduced by the work they have to do, let him as I say go to these staff associations—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation, I did not blame the hon. Minister. He probably did not understand my Afrikaans. I did not say that the morale of the tradesmen or anyone else was brought down, but those people who were being charged in the amendment had stated that these people were compelled to make wrong returns in dividing up their work, and I suggest that if that is so then they were lowering the morale of these people? Surely the Minister cannot argue that away?

I will leave the hon. member’s explanation to the House. The hon. member asked me if I understood his Afrikaans, and accused me of not understanding his Afrikaans. One thing I did hear him say—and again he may deny it—he did use the word “traffiek”; the right word to use was “verkeer”.

I never used the word “traffiek” in the whole of my speech. I never said that.

In regard to the question he raised about the foremen, I should like to say that the matter was considered by the Hours of Duty Committee, on which all the associations are represented. They produced a monumental work, dealing with the working hours of all the staff including the foremen, and we have accepted their recommendations in toto. The hours of foremen are being reduced to 48 per week wherever possible. Many foremen are now down to 48 hours a week, and the maximum they can work in any case is 60 hours. There are foremen in out of the way places where the work is light who are working the longer hours. It is quite true in regard to foremen we have some difficulty in applying some of these improved conditions, because we have not the foremen to put into these posts, and also partly due to shortage of housing. There is no difference in the treatment of foremen on the Garden Route. The staff on that section are treated like all other sections of the railways. The hon. member wants to know about John Martin and what he had to do with air services, and he suggested ulterior motives on the part of Mr. John Martin. Or perhaps I again misunderstood. I suggest that for anyone to suggest ulterior motivés in connection with Mr. John Martin is unworthy even of the hon. member for Swellendam, and that is saying a good deal. To suggest that Mr. John Martin might have been instrumental in sabotaging the international agreement is really laughable in face of the fact. No one worked so hard as he to make a success of the Chicago Conference and to achieve success for the South African point of view. No one worked harder that John Martin, a fact that was recognised by the Conference having appointed him chairman of the principal committee whose function it was to try to bring the conflicting views together. In the light of that I think it is a pity the hon. member lets his prejudices run away with such intelligence as he possesses. In regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) I have already, in my reply to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) dealt with his remarks affecting recognition of native unions. The hon. member seems to have had an unfortunate time on the railways, but I am sure his experience is quite unusual. Regarding the towels, these were removed at the instigation of the Department of Public Health, and at the present moment the railways are endeavouring to secure permission from the Department of Public Health to put the towels back. But I think it will be agreed that in this matter the Administration should not act without the authority of the Public Health Department. He referred to the question of our South African ships, and that was referred to by one or two other members as well. My colleague, the Minister of Economic Development and I are determined to do what we can to put South Africa on the sea. I am in favour of developing our coasting trade, and if later we find it necessary to develop that by services belonging to the Government, I am prepared, with the support of the Government to do so. In any negotiations with the shipping companies in the future, we shall, I hope, be more exacting in the demands we make to ensure that South African shipping interests are protected. Because the Department of Economic Development and Transport have so much in common in this matter we have appointed Mr. J. D. White of Transport and Mr. Malan as Inter-departmental Committee in permanent session on this subject, and good progress is being made. Our ship repair business is bound up with the same question. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) wanted to know about the racing dogs. I am very sorry to say, but confession is good for the soul, that these dogs were brought out on a railway steamer. They had an import essentiality certificate.

Who gave the certificate?

That I do not know. They had an essentiality certificate and in consequence they were brought out in one of the administration’s steamers. They occupied deck space which could not possibly have been occupied by anything else. Thirty-seven dogs were landed and were conveyed as deck cargo. The veterinary officer advises that as the animals complied with the requirements before shipment it was not necessary for them to be quarantined at Durban. The dogs were conveyed from Durban to Johannesburg in 23 crates in truckage equalling 10 shorts, and were afforded fast goods train transit. No special facilities were provided by the Administration. There was some mention about medical attendance, but there was nothing in that. Let me says again that I regret that the Administration had anything to do with such an importation. I think it should not really have been allowed at this time. Apart altogether from the question whether there was room on the ship or not, it strikes the wrong note. However, there it is. I have told the House what the facts are—as I always do. The hon. member for Mowbray (Capt. Hare) asked about his station. As he knows, that has been bound up with the settlement of the site for the new Cape Town station. Now that that has been settled and we are going ahead the hon. member may live in hopes of an early beginning with a new station at Mowbray. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) brought up one or two cases that I was interested to hear, and as far as the particular cases are concerned I shall have them looked into. I might say that in those where the hon. member for Winburg is concerned where no wage determination exists to dictate wages, then the wages are paid to casual labourers on railway standards. I think that is really the only thing we can do. It may happen, nevertheless, that two men apparently doing the same class of work, are paid at different rates. The case of Du Toit is being investigated. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) raised a question in regard to the recognition of staff unions, but I have already dealt with that. The possibility of employing nonEuropeans in graded positions has been closely examined, but it is extremely difficult to employ non-Europeans in such positions. It is clear there would be the gravest objection in doing so if we made the attempt. We do, however, hope to expand the opportunities for advancement amongst coloured workers, and in view of the increase in our native traffic the opportunities may occur, for the time is approaching when we shall have to have trains for Africans on which it would be possible to employ coloured stewards. There may also be further openings for nonEuropeans in that connection. The hon. member for Koopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) complained about mixed travelling, white and coloured. As I have already indicated, the position is not easy. As far as the railways are concerned, every effort is being made by the Administration, particularly in the country districts, to ensure that all sections of the public travel in comfort. The hon. member is not clear about my powers when he suggests that in addition to running buses I should build roads to run them on. I might be prepared to consider building these roads if Parliament would say how I am to finance their construction, but if the cost is to be a charge on the bus services, I am afraid the farmers are in for a bad time. In reply to the questions raised by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Morris) I can assure the hon. member that I am always prepared to consider sympathetically any proposals for developing railway traffic. I appreciate that great improvements are still possible in respect of the conditions pertaining to non-Europeans working in his district, and that subject is constantly under examination. In regard to the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) he raised one or two points that I shall examine. It is impossible to add two dining saloons to a train, because we have neither the staff nor the saloons available, and the saloons would moreover take up the room of ordinary carriages. His desire for new railway lines is appreciated, and he will recognise the difficulties in the area he represents. I shall continue to interest myself in his problem. So far as the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend) is concerned, I shall look into the question of more trucks for the conveyance of timber in his area. Then I should like to assure the hon. member for East London (City) (Mr. Latimer) that I am fully aware of the shortcomings of the East London workshops. He knows, however, the reasons for the delay that has occurred, because as he appreciates, we are making a big move in East London. I have visted East London on two or three occasions and no effort has been spared by me to further the work. He also raised the question of pensioners. This is a big question, and it is largely a matter for the hon. Minister of Finance. We have done a good deal, and we shall continue to give the matter our close consideration in the future as we have in the past. I am dealing with the question of shipping at East London in my Budget speech, but I would point out to the hon. member that although East London has been short in shipping, a new industry has arisen in its docks in connection with ship repairs. They have repaired 236 merchant ships and 143 naval ships over the last four years, apart from all the railway tugs and other craft, so there is something to be placed on the other side of the balance sheet as far as East London is concerned. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has dealt with aviation matters, but I have replied fully to that. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) raised one or two points, and I will ask the General Manager to look into the cases he has mentioned regarding stock transport troubles. I hope that when conditions permit we shall be able to improve coaching and passenger and stock services in his area. As far as the question raised by the hon. member for Transkei (Mr. Hemming) is concerned, the whole subject of coaching stock and facilities for natives is being examined at the present time, and as I have already indicated I hope we shall be able to improve conditions there too. As to overcrowding on the main line trains, that is primarily due to the fact that natives will not book in advance. If they would do a little more advance booking we could arrange to take them. I shall not go into the question of new lines, because that is something we cannot tackle at present. The hon. member for Kroonstad (Mr. A. Steyn) complained about ramshackle buildings. I admit conditions are bad. I visited Kroonstad recently, and everything that can be done will be done to improve the very unsatisfactory state of affairs there. I give him this definite undertaking that when we have the opportunity of making a really substantial move in regard to housing, or other matters, the platteland will share with the big cities to the fullest extent. We will not concentrate on the cities. We talk a great deal about the big schemes in the cities, but the actual work will be distributed fairly between the cities and the platteland. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludiek) referred to the Vryburg area and said they needed more railways, but I would emphasise this, that the Vryburg area is a model example of what can be done by road transport. It is the finest example in the country of what can be handled by road transport, and for a long time to come I think the needs of that area will be met by the road transport service. In regard to the hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Van Onselen) every consideration is given to the promotion of men holding acting appointments. I regret that I could not quite follow the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) on one or two points. He will, however, appreciate that as I have already said where merit is the reason for promotion, it is not always easy to satisfy the man who has been passed over. Those who have been passed over invariably believe they have been unjustly treated. I hope the hon. member is satisfied that I personally would not stand for any spying service in the railways. It is one of the things I would not have anything to do with, and I do not believe it exists. Individual officers may occasionally do things they should not do, but if hon. members bring a case of that sort to my notice, I shall go into it. In regard to the point he raised in connection with the Controller and Auditor-General’s report in connection with the graving dock, I would like to make it quite clear that the omission to show the Admiralty contribution was an accident, it was a mistake. It will appear again in the Brown Book this year. It was merely an accidental omission which merely had to be drawn attention to to be put right. So far as the graving dock in Cape Town is concerned and also at East London, there is no question of ownership vesting other than in the Union of South Africa. No question of any conditions with the Admiralty were ever raised or ever made, and none were offered. The ownership of the dock is exclusively in the hands of the Union Government. The hon. member asked if I had reprimanded the officer who had exceeded his instructions at East London. Unfortunately before the Controller and Auditor-General discovered that he had exceeded his instructions, the officer in question had retired from the service and I felt it was beyond my power at that stage to reprimand him. Regarding hotels at Pretoria and Cape Town, the hon. member seems to think we should not go ahead with these as long as there is a housing problem in the country. I would like to point out, however, that we must not get exaggerated impressions about these things. It is no use clamping down on all developments. It is no use providing housing for employees if you have no work to give them. Along with their housing requirements we must develop employment for them, and along with providing houses for the men, we must provide work for them so that they are able to pay their rent. To say that the one shall go on and the other not is the wrong policy.

Start building houses.

We have already done it. Let me say that the hotels have no hope of being started for a few years. I am only now sending men overseas to be trained, but I hope a good measure of progress will be achieved in the near future in regard to housing. In regard to the Touwsriver Township, I am going ahead with that. There has been a little delay until we decided what to do about the electrification to Touwsriver or Beaufort West. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) raised one or two points which I will ask the General Manager to examine. The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) raised the question about his station which appears to be in a bad way, and I will have that looked into carefully. In regard to the condition of the rail workers which he raised, I have done a great deal for the rail workers, but I am not prepared at this stage to go so far in the matter of leave, as he suggested. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward) knows that I will not neglect Port Elizabeth. No time will be lost in going ahead with the regrading scheme. What he requires for welfare workers will be given. In replying to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. Johnson) I dealt with the foreshore question. In regard to the plans for the expansion of the institute, I can say that those plans are already under preparation. After completion they will be discussed with the Institute Committee. Now I come to the hon. member for Vredefort (Mr. Klopper). The hon. member for Vredefort raised the question that I had not said very much about my Appropriation, but as a matter of fact, it has grown up to be rather our Parliamentary practice that we say all we have to say about our policy in our Budget speeches, and the Appropriations are more or less moved formally. It is quite true that the Part Appropriation has become the main railway debate from the point of view of discussion, hence the fact that at this late hour I am still replying to questions. But it is in my Budget speech that I give an outline of the more salient and important features of my policy. The hon. member expressed a hope that I would not play up to Port Elizabeth at the present time because of the election. I can assure him that it is quite unnecessary for me to do that.

Wait and see.

Port Elizabeth never had a Government or a Minister of Transport they have trusted more than they trust us.

What about Charlie Malan?

Why are you sending down this army of members of Parliament to speak at Port Elizabeth?

He asked me whether I would consider an air service from Russia if it came here. I have nothing to do with Russia sending planes here. As I have already said, America, Russia, or anyone else can come to our international airport as their ships will come to our seaports. The hon. member indicated that the staff and the public were both dissatisfied, but I think after the speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) I do not really need to say anything more about that. I might give the same advice to him. If the railway staff are dissatisfied, I ask him to do what I asked the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) to do, and that is to get one of the staff associations to give their views; go to the group F Rail workers, for whom the hon. member for Vredefort claims to be the speaker; go to that staff association and, ask them if they are really dissatisfied.

What does the Spoorbond say?

What does the Broederbond say?

What do the Free Masons say?

In regard to the question of reducing the salary for a post, that is done sometimes to prevent a man who is a specialist in a particular job from getting seniority over equally good men in other jobs. I am always getting it both ways. If I reduce the salary of a post to fit in an efficient man, and keep his seniority in line with other members of the staff, that is objected to. If I did not do this, but put him over the heads of his contemporaries I do equally wrong especially if those passed over are friends of the Opposition. The hon. member for Vredefort raised the question about certain staff officers, but I have here a letter from one of these staff officers which I think I might read to the House. This is the kind of thing that our unfortunate staff officers have to put up with. This staff officer says—

You deny his right to raise it here?

Why cannot he raise it here?

I merely read it to show that intervention in such matters by hon. members opposite is apparently not appreciated.

He says that because he is afraid of victimisation.

The hon. member is afraid to hear me speak. Does the hon. member object to my answering his questions? I want to show hon. members of this House that my officers are being gravely embarrassed by some of their so-called friends and their representations. I have 75,000 European employees on the Railways. If I were to start to deal in this House with every case that came up, I would be spending my whole time in this House explaining why certain people get promotion and others do not. In certain cases of an individual being passed over when he should not have been passed over, when he has the merit, I shall be only too glad to hear representation from any member. Any hon. member opposite can make such representation, but I suggest that such representations are much better made in the first instance so that the names of our officials are not dragged across the floor of this House. The hon. member for Hospital wanted to know who would be the next General Manager. The post of General Manager is a Cabinet appointment and I am quite certain that no member of the Cabinet has really given any consideration to the problem yet. He wanted to know when the railway to Pretoria would be built. That is now being investigated and I have promised a report within nine months. I would also like to tell him that I am laying in stocks of brandy and wine for the use of the railways in future and he may be quite sure that he will get the best quality in time to come. It is quite true that some of our brandy leaves a good deal to be desired at the present time. The hon. member is not here, so I need not proceed to answer any more of his questions. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) is not here. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) raised the question of the police, and I will have that matter looked into. I am afraid the information is not immediately available, but I will have a full investigation made. With regard to the R.M.T. services in his areas, the hon. member knows the difficulties I have at the present time with much increased traffic and a shortage of rolling stock, or a greatly reduced stock of buses. I would also have these things looked into and have an officer sent up to see what the conditions are. I can assure the member also that the Railway Administration will never send natives to investigate anything which is concerned with white men. I give the hon. member a most emphatic assurance. I would share the hon. member’s feeling if such a thing were done.

It is not a question of investigation; it is a question of having native constables in the goods sheds.

The native constable may be there to watch for natives.

But there are no natives in the goods sheds.

But natives may come in. There are usually large numbers of native visitors in these goods sheds. However, I will go into it. The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. J. G. W. Van Niekerk) raised the question of checker’s coats, but that should be raised by the staff association concerned. With regard to the Piet Retief-Gollel line, that has been examined but has not been recommended. The Piet Retief goods sheds are receiving attention. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) raised a few points. Most of the questions he raised are questions which should properly be raised by the staff association. If the staff association wants a new grade created, I should be glad to go into the matter. It ought to be dealt with by experts in that particular grade. I do not know whether there is a general demand for it or not. The same applies to the special sergeants. Men in the army do not lose their promotion because they are away, and it may be that men come back promoted because they were due for promotion while they were away. Men in the army get their promotion automatically, even if they are not on the job, but if I can identify the case, I will go into it. The question of the plans of the houses referred to by the hon. member are still under consideration. The matter is being discussed with representatives of group F. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the houses with extra rooms are for sale. This room need not be used for servant quarters. It can be used as an extra room for the family, if so desired. The other complaints raised by the hon. member will be looked into. Regarding the question of breakages, the staff are completely satisfied on the question of breakages. We had a committee on which the stewards in the catering staff were represented. The committee reported as follows—

But I disturbed the present practice in spite of that recommendation because I allowed four per cent. instead of three per cent. for breakages. I want to say to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) that the case of the widow that he mentioned is obviously one for our benevolent fund. I will find out whether something was not done for that lady. I am not at this late stage prepared to commit myself to a new station at Frankfort. If there is any single place in South Africa that does not require a new station, I should be glad if the hon. member would mention it or forever hold his peace.

Question put: That all the words after “That”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the motion, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—68.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell. R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

Lawrence, H. G.

Maré, F. J.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—29.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E. H.

Ludiek, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Olivier, P. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment dropped.

Original motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee on the Bill now.

House in Committee :

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a third time on 1st March.